Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

uptherebels · 23-01-2018 09:34AM

EOTR if at any point you care to address the below points that would be great.
You are doing your cause a disservice by repeatedly making inaccurate claims. No point in saying these things and when called on them saying they are fake news - sorry I mean invalid points.
If what you claim are the well known facts- as you say ,supporting evidence should be easy to attain.

end of the road wrote: »

those points are inaccurate and are just made up in an attempt to de-rail the thread.
i haven't used any unsupported claims and i don't masquerade anything as fact. i do give some well known and widely availible facts yes, however where something isn't fact i make it clear that it's my viewpoint.

uptherebels wrote: »

Asking you to provide evidence of your claims isntan attempt to derail a thread.
No unsupported claims? Remind me why you got banned from one of the other abortion threads .

end of the road wrote: »

christians and all other religions are united with those of us who are non-religious in knowing that the killing of the unborn unrestricted and on demand is one of the most barbaric acts known to man.

uptherebels wrote: »

So when you claimed the above can you point out how you showed this was your viewpoint? As claiming all religions are united with you is incorrect as some religions have no official stance on abortion and some are ok with it up to a certain number of weeks. Even JC's link before to show that atheists are pro life showed that Catholics are approx 50/50 in being for/against abortion in most/all cases

Cabaal · 23-01-2018 11:45AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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.

That's because they don't see it as a child, that is why catholic hospitals have even gone to court to argue that a fetus is not equal to a child in the past.

david75 · 23-01-2018 09:19PM

Just saw something on twitter I have always wondered about.
Certain extreme elements within the pro life campaign have always but are now also using really graphic imagery showing alleged abortions/failures. There’s posters up around town already.

Do they not realise this is not only an utterly counter productive and self destructive means of (mis) communicating their message but also these images cause huge upset to the many women and their husbands who have suffered miscarriages or FFA?

It’s going to really turn even undecided people off voting for them. Is it really necessary? And is such imagery allowed be used in a referendum?

https://twitter.com/jshannon/status/955829695878230016

end of the road · 23-01-2018 09:42PM

there is no evidence that
1. this tactic is a counter productive and self destructive means of communicating their message.
2. that it will turn undecided people off voting for them.
i'm afraid it's likely that this is more wishful thinking on your part rather then something true and based on accuracy, as such immages do show accurate happenings.

david75 · 23-01-2018 09:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

there is no evidence that
1. this tactic is a counter productive and self destructive means of communicating their message.
2. that it will turn undecided people off voting for them.
i'm afraid it's likely that this is more wishful thinking on your part rather then something true and based on accuracy, as such immages do show accurate happenings.

How about playing the point rather than coming at me personally? I don’t wishfully think anything.
There’s plenty of evidence these images upset people. Read the thread in the image I posted. The first response is from a woman saying it makes her upset as she had a miscarriage. I’ve also seen people complain to Gardai about youth defence doing the same thing outside the gpo and gardai felling them to take the images down and moving them when they refuse.

Maybe you could as a thought experiment look from the other point of view and see why the use of these kind of images could be self sabotaging

antiskeptic · 23-01-2018 10:01PM

david75 wrote: »

How about playing the point rather than coming at me personally? I don’t wishfully think anything.
There’s plenty of evidence these images upset people. Read the thread in the image I posted. The first response is from a woman saying it makes her upset as she had a miscarriage. I’ve also seen people complain to Gardai about youth defence doing the same thing outside the gpo and gardai felling them to take the images down and moving them when they refuse.

Maybe you could as a thought experiment look from the other point of view and see why the use of these kind of images could be self sabotaging

Graphic warnings on cigarette packets? Would people who have direct experience of the diseases shown be upset by them?

david75 · 23-01-2018 10:04PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Graphic warnings on cigarette packets? Would people who have direct experience of the diseases shown be upset by them?

I’m sure they would. Your wandered away from the point with an odd analogy but yeah I’d say they would be.

PopePalpatine · 23-01-2018 10:06PM

david75 wrote: »

Just saw something on twitter I have always wondered about.
Certain extreme elements within the pro life campaign have always but are now also using really graphic imagery showing alleged abortions/failures. There’s posters up around town already.

Do they not realise this is not only an utterly counter productive and self destructive means of (mis) communicating their message but also these images cause huge upset to the many women and their husbands who have suffered miscarriages or FFA?

It’s going to really turn even undecided people off voting for them. Is it really necessary? And is such imagery allowed be used in a referendum?

It's the same kind of logic that drives knuckle-dragging fascists to spew bigoted abuse. Convincing the other side or the undecideds isn't the point, the point is to drag their targets down to their level.

SusieBlue · 23-01-2018 10:24PM

end of the road wrote: »

there is no evidence that
1. this tactic is a counter productive and self destructive means of communicating their message.
2. that it will turn undecided people off voting for them.
i'm afraid it's likely that this is more wishful thinking on your part rather then something true and based on accuracy, as such immages do show accurate happenings.

Still waiting for a reply to my query of links to proof that women who have abortions think they need them, but actually don’t.

david75 · 23-01-2018 10:28PM

You’d imagine that on such a profoundly divisive and sensitive issue in Ireland, the self appointed mouth pieces for the pro life campaign would vocally and visibly distance themselves from that sort of campaigning.
They tried the same what about the kids?!? Nonsense in marriage equality and it backfired on them the moment they did and all the way through to their defeat.

Really isn’t the way to win a referendum having what are effectively extremists out claiming to be on your side.

end of the road · 23-01-2018 11:42PM

david75 wrote: »

You’d imagine that on such a profoundly divisive and sensitive issue in Ireland, the self appointed mouth pieces for the pro life campaign would vocally and visibly distance themselves from that sort of campaigning.
They tried the same what about the kids?!? Nonsense in marriage equality and it backfired on them the moment they did and all the way through to their defeat.

Really isn’t the way to win a referendum having what are effectively extremists out claiming to be on your side.

the marriage equality referendum was a very different beast. most people were in favour of, marriage equality, others didn't agree with it but were willing to vote for it because nobody would be harmed. repealing the 8th is very different due to the abortion debate, a lot of people don't agree with abortion on demand.

antiskeptic · 23-01-2018 11:53PM

david75 wrote: »

I’m sure they would. Your wandered away from the point with an odd analogy but yeah I’d say they would be.

More relevant precedent than an analogy.

The point was potential damage to the cause? I'd
imagine here as most places the aim is the undecided voter. I can see the benefits of letting folk see something of the reality of the slaughterhouse rather than expose them only to the neatly packaged product.

(Regarding the objection that may be raised as to images and the developmental stage at 12 weeks I'd point to the progression of an ideology being a continum - it stops when it's aims have been achieved. And see no reason to see repeal of the 8th as the end game)

So much of the debate lies in the realm of talking heads. There's only so much of that a person can absorb typically.

If nothing else, folk can't say they didn't know.

At risk of the usual Godwins Law Nazis chipping in. Civilians who where once convinced enough by an ideology (for that is what both prochoice and prolife are driven by) to allow the extermintion of those who they'd been led to believe were sub-human, were somewhat chagrined when brought face to face with the actual results in the camps, once they had lost the war.

It's some risk to take: to suppose oneself God.

Gerry T · 24-01-2018 12:43AM

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It's not about what I think about women. My question is, if you think women having an abortion because it affects the social life/finances etc...is not a valid reason for an abortion then you should vote against repeal.
Unless of course you can satisfy yourself that 100% of women wouldn't do that.
A vote to repeal allows women to abort for any and all reasons.
What should be done is look to change legislation so that as a society we agree under what circumstances an abortion can be allowed. Your comment suggests that women wouldn't have an abortion for a frivolous reason, so this approach should sit well with you

Gerry T · 24-01-2018 12:57AM

WhiteRoses wrote:

Itâ€™s actually sickening the way women are spoken about in this thread.

Your twisting what is being said. The discussion is should abortions be allowed without a reason. Not all women will make considered decisions hence there needs to be some legislation. I don't agree with zero abortion as the line, I'm not at the polar ends but somewhere in the middle. But given the choice of having either polar position, I will vote not to repeal until a better choice is presented.
This is not an attack at women, if a woman wants to do anything with her body I would say fire away. But I'm discussing the childs body.

david75 · 24-01-2018 01:36AM

end of the road wrote: »

the marriage equality referendum was a very different beast. most people were in favour of, marriage equality, others didn't agree with it but were willing to vote for it because nobody would be harmed. repealing the 8th is very different due to the abortion debate, a lot of people don't agree with abortion on demand.

I’d disagree.
The same people that positioned themselves as the moral superiority and mouthpieces of their campaign in marriage equality are the same ones positioning themselves here in this debate.
Cora Sherlock Breda O Brien Paddy Manning that Everrt woman and her husband Keith Mills etc and of course, David Quinn.

They oversaw a campaign using multiple fronts including mothers and fathers matter, in the deluded hope that Irish people are stupid enough to believe the nonsense they were coming out with. And the patronising and condescending and utterly false narrative they were pushing assumed we were all stupid and would buy it. Cos that’s what they do when the church says jump.

These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message. Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again?

Ps. We aren’t having a referendum on abortion on demand. At all. You seem to either not have a full grasp of the facts involved or are confused and trying to assume other people are as confused as you.
It’s not working.

end of the road · 24-01-2018 02:06AM

david75 wrote: »

I’d disagree.
The same people that positioned themselves as the moral superiority and mouthpieces of their campaign in marriage equality are the same ones positioning themselves here in this debate.
Cora Sherlock Breda O Brien Paddy Manning that Everrt woman and her husband Keith Mills etc and of course, David Quinn.

They oversaw a campaign using multiple fronts including mothers and fathers matter, in the deluded hope that Irish people are stupid enough to believe the nonsense they were coming out with. And the patronising and condescending and utterly false narrative they were pushing assumed we were all stupid and would buy it. Cos that’s what they do when the church says jump.

These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message. Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again?

Ps. We aren’t having a referendum on abortion on demand. At all. You seem to either not have a full grasp of the facts involved or are confused and trying to assume other people are as confused as you.
It’s not working.

i'm well aware technically the referendum isn't about abortion on demand. however the reality is abortion on demand is the main thing that will be the result of it, and that is why people are talking about that the most. if it was just about repealing the 8th then there would be lots of support for that including from pro-life supporters including myself.

Hotblack Desiato · 24-01-2018 02:26AM

david75 wrote: »

These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message.

I hope they don't, because it's entirely counter-productive.

Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again?

They have hired a UK PR firm, so the money rolling in from foreign donors never has to touch a bank account or organisation in Ireland - this is illegal campaign financing and there isn't a damn thing SIPO can do about it.

david75 · 24-01-2018 02:27AM

end of the road wrote: »

i'm well aware technically the referendum isn't about abortion on demand. however the reality is abortion on demand is the main thing that will be the result of it, and that is why people are talking about that the most. if it was just about repealing the 8th then there would be lots of support for that including from pro-life supporters including myself.

We’re asking for the 8th I be repealed and finally for an Irish government to stand up and show some maturity through legislation that is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the women involved.

We have an atrocious history with dealing and sorting out difficult issues. None of our TDS are educated or equipped to make even barely serviceable regulations on these matters. They’re hicks and upstarts from small towns with painfully small parties ah pump outlooks.

Just look at the Hepatitis/infected blood scandal back in the 90s.

Something I don’t understand. The pro life campaign are fine with women traveling for abortion to the uk. They just don’t want it happening here.
This suggests they’re either fine with the abortion happening or they know the reality that by the time a woman or young girl finds out she’s pregnant she’ll be unable to get enough money together to go and see to her medical needs in the uk.

So that’s both stupid and cruel no matter what way you look at it.

end of the road · 24-01-2018 02:39AM

david75 wrote: »

We’re asking for the 8th I be repealed and finally for an Irish government to stand up and show some maturity through legislation that is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the women involved.

We have an atrocious history with dealing and sorting out difficult issues. None of our TDS are educated or equipped to make even barely serviceable regulations on these matters. They’re hicks and upstarts from small towns with painfully small parties ah pump outlooks.

Just look at the Hepatitis/infected blood scandal back in the 90s.

Something I don’t understand. The pro life campaign are fine with women traveling for abortion to the uk. They just don’t want it happening here.
This suggests they’re either fine with the abortion happening or they know the reality that by the time a woman or young girl finds out she’s pregnant she’ll be unable to get enough money together to go and see to her medical needs in the uk.

So that’s both stupid and cruel no matter what way you look at it.

it would only be cruel if abortions in extreme circumstances were being prevented. as it's abortion on demand then it's not cruel, the current system is necessary to try and protect the life of the unborn and it is stopping some abortions.
having people traveling to the uk insures that those people fund the abortion themselves rather then the hard-pressed tax payer as a whole having to do it. pro-life are not okay with people having abortions abroad but we have to recognise there is a right to travel and people are able under EU law to use services in other countries and we cannot stop them.

david75 · 24-01-2018 02:46AM

end of the road wrote: »

it would only be cruel if abortions in extreme circumstances were being prevented. as it's abortion on demand then it's not cruel, the current system is necessary to try and protect the life of the unborn and it is stopping some abortions.
having people traveling to the uk insures that those people fund the abortion themselves rather then the hard-pressed tax payer as a whole having to do it. pro-life are not okay with people having abortions abroad but we have to recognise there is a right to travel and people are able under EU law to use services in other countries and we cannot stop them.

The clinically dead corpse of a woman was kept on life support a few years back in the rotunda in Dublin because even though the baby was due any moment it wasn’t going to live even moments after birth. The mother was legally dead. The hospitals hands were legally bound and couldnt do anything. This was prior to Savitas situation.

We need to let the medical professionals make decisions here. Not your morals or mine or anyone else’s.

david75 · 24-01-2018 02:50AM

24 Dec 2014 · A clinically dead pregnant woman must be maintained on life support if the High Court finds there is a “real” prospect her unborn child will achieve viability outside the womb,

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/woman-must-stay-on-life-support-if-real-prospect-unborn-viable-court-hears-1.2048425%3fmode=amp

end of the road · 24-01-2018 02:51AM

david75 wrote: »

The clinically dead corpse of a woman was kept on life support a few years back in the rotunda in Dublin because even though the baby was due any moment it wasn’t going to live even moments after birth. The mother was legally dead. The hospitals hands were legally bound and couldnt do anything. This was prior to Savitas situation.

We need to let the medical professionals make decisions here. Not your morals or mine or anyone else’s.

that case is not relevant to the discussion of abortion on demand. it's completely different as the baby apparently wasn't going to live anyway.

david75 · 24-01-2018 02:57AM

end of the road wrote: »

that case is not relevant to the discussion of abortion on demand. it's completely different as the baby apparently wasn't going to live anyway.

It is relevant. As with Savita the hospital couldn’t act in the required manner and the usual pro life mouthpieces including the head of that hospital came out speaking against allowing the best medical practice be administered to the patient.

Both families had to sit in agony and watch this happen.

gallifreya · 24-01-2018 04:34AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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"

There can be equally as many reasons to have an abortion as there are to continue with pregnancies. These reasons are legion and cannot possibly be legislated for separately. No individual should want nor get to sit in judgment or in righteous superiority and decide which of those reasons are ‘legitimate’ and which are not - or indeed which is a genuine need for an abortion and which is a want. We should not get to define the exceptions. We can never stipulate exactly how or when a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, when an abortion has a ‘good or bad enough reason’ to define it or when circumstances are dire enough or a relationship is abusive enough to justify an abortion. That is for women to decide privately with regard to their own circumstances and I know none who ever made this decision with reckless abandon.

This fear of what women’s reasons for abortions ‘may’ be and ‘why’ they might make such a decision is unsupportable, controlling and oppressive. The fact that it’s masked as a concern for the unborn does not make it less oppressive or judgmental. Why do some consider abortion more acceptable when women have suffered btw?

If someone wants to contend that that foetus has rights, and call that foetus a person and a baby from conception, that’s up to them but even the state and constitution disagree with that position. You can believe that a 12 week old foetus is a separate person and this is can be debated to eternity. However, there’s no doubt that a woman is a person. And so the question is - at what point is a woman not a person? At what point does a woman lose the right to control her reproduction, make health decisions and to have bodily integrity? Does pregnancy from conception supersede the rights of a woman to make decisions about her future, her health, her body, her medical care? Currently, the constitution says it does which suppresses women’s rights inequitably in favour of the unborn - so an actual balance of rights is proposed for various reasons up to a 12 week limitation. This takes some (not all) of the current protections from the unborn and gives them to the woman – up to a limit.

Abortion ‘on demand’, if you want to put it like that, is already here. It’s here in the form of thousands of women able to afford it travelling to the UK. It’s really here in the form of a pill that is being taken and will be taken by women without medical supervision risking their life, health and imprisonment. That is one of the reasons why the recommendation is for safety, accessibility and decriminalisation for any reason within a 12 week limit. Another is of course, because of the due process required for accused rapists. Is it possible for a Christian and society to support both women and the unborn by working towards making abortions unnecessary rather than illegal but until then, leaving the hard choices up to the women directly affected instead of trying to erase them from the equation entirely?

gallifreya · 24-01-2018 05:02AM

end of the road wrote: »

it would only be cruel if abortions in extreme circumstances were being prevented. as it's abortion on demand then it's not cruel, the current system is necessary to try and protect the life of the unborn and it is stopping some abortions.
having people traveling to the uk insures that those people fund the abortion themselves rather then the hard-pressed tax payer as a whole having to do it. pro-life are not okay with people having abortions abroad but we have to recognise there is a right to travel and people are able under EU law to use services in other countries and we cannot stop them.

Abortion is only cruel if prevented in extreme circumstances - according to you?

Fund it themselves? Hard pressed tax payer? Nobody has any control over how the government spends tax funds. I may not ever use the bridges, parks, transport systems, clinics, housing endeavours etc built and supported by taxes but I appreciate that the funds are used to benefit society in general - and women's health is part of that. So would you vote to repeal the 8th amendment as currently proposed if women had to fund abortions or pregnancy terminations for health reasons themselves?

smacl · 24-01-2018 09:28AM

Gerry T wrote: »

Your twisting what is being said. The discussion is should abortions be allowed without a reason. Not all women will make considered decisions hence there needs to be some legislation. I don't agree with zero abortion as the line, I'm not at the polar ends but somewhere in the middle. But given the choice of having either polar position, I will vote not to repeal until a better choice is presented.
This is not an attack at women, if a woman wants to do anything with her body I would say fire away. But I'm discussing the childs body.

Your logic is badly wrong there. As things stand in this country, we're already in the extreme polar position, to the extent that the UN has commented on us in relation to neglecting women's rights. By voting to keep the eighth you're voting to maintain an extreme and inhumane status quo. Pretending otherwise on the pretext of having an option that better suits your personal preference at some stage in the future is burying your head in the sand.

There seems to be agreement on both sides here that whether or not a foetus at 12 weeks is or is not a person is a matter of personally held belief, whereas that a pregnant woman is a person is a matter of fact. On that basis, I find it morally reprehensible that those from the pro-life side would seek to dictate to a woman how she should behave based on their questionable beliefs. Pithy analogies to slavery, finger-wagging NIMBYisms and shameful shock tactics just add to this.

antiskeptic · 24-01-2018 10:23AM

smacl wrote: »

Your logic is badly wrong there.

Lets have a look at this logic.

As things stand in this country, we're already in the extreme polar position, to the extent that the UN has commented on us in relation to neglecting women's rights. By voting to keep the eighth you're voting to maintain an extreme and inhumane status quo.

You're effectively citing an ideology (or majority view from a multitude of differing ideologies) which happens to conform to your own as some kind of absolute authority?

Isn't this simply authority of the majority? Pick another majority (e.g. world Catholicism) and you get a different result.

There seems to be agreement on both sides here that whether or not a foetus at 12 weeks is or is not a person is a matter of personally held belief, whereas that a pregnant woman is a person is a matter of fact. On that basis, I find it morally reprehensible that those from the pro-life side would seek to dictate to a woman how she should behave based on their questionable beliefs.

The pregnant woman a person is a matter of fact. And that fact stands there on it's own unless you begin to add therefore's onto it. Once you add a therefore (regarding how to approach the pregnancy), you immediately add a personal philosophy.

Your therefore can't avoid dealing with the nature of whats in her womb.

Pithy analogies to slavery, finger-wagging NIMBYisms and shameful shock tactics just add to this.

The nimbyism merely holds that you cannot prevent someone from travelling. The question is what are we as a society to uphold in our society. We can't, and oughtn't dictate what another society do.

....... · 24-01-2018 10:24AM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 24-01-2018 10:26AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 24-01-2018 10:33AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Watch this space.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments