Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

smacl wrote: »

We as a country signed up to the UN through due democratic process. Thus we accept them as an authority much as we accept our judicial system or police force as an authority. Individuals may decide not to accept such authorities but in doing so they're acting against society rather than as part of it.

I'm only acting against that section of society which would agree with your view. I'm not acting against that section of society who would see things as more nuanced /disagree.

At the end of the day, you're trying to appeal to some majority view, when fundamentally, that view is but the product of individuals particular philosophy.

Its almost as if morality was rendered absolute providing you get sufficient numbers agreeing with you. Surely you know that there is no absolute morality in your system: if the culture leans this way then that's moral, if that way then that's moral.

Its difficult to live with but that's the end result of your system

An authority such as the Catholic church by comparison has no mandate beyond its own membership. As such while it can exert its influence on its membership, even though they often choose to ignore it, it can't reasonably make demands on other members of society.

It can do as any group can do, seek to have it/it's members view shape the way of society. If that results in on others outside it's membership, then so be it. It's society that's up for grabs by anyone who seeks to shape it.

That makes no sense whatsoever, I've merely pointed that whether or not the foetus is or is not a person is a matter of conjecture. Similarly, whether the freshly implanted ovum is a person is also a matter of conjecture. The latter is of course dismissed by the majority of this country. The upcoming vote will ascertain whether the former will similarly be dismissed. I for one believe it will, by a sizeable majority, and leave us with a far more compassionate country as a result.

Fair enough. I thought you were trying to establish the primacy of the pregnant womans rights over the rights of a foetus by aruing "the pregnant woman is a person is a fact".

If they travel for an abortion, it will be to a country that allows abortion, hence this is just NIMBYism.

Then we should allow anything another country permits, simply because a person can travel to get it if not allowed here.

As I say, you can chose to avoid the argument if you want by reassertion of a straw man

If, as is increasingly the case, if the girl or woman has an abortion here in uncontrolled circumstances using questionable abortifacients, that same NIMBYism is putting someone's health or even life in peril.

The primary agent here is the person who seeks an abortion.

Agreed, while we might never agree IMHO there's still value in the discussion.

Indeed.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I could take out a full page ad to tell folk I'm going to Holland to smoke hash in a public square there.

Ought we then legalize cannabis here just because its legal there?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Smoking hash sits alongside any number of example that can be given where a person is free to travel to and avail of the laws of the land they travel to. That is the general rule of thumb and can be expected to be the default, starting position unless a specific reason to act otherwise.

The laws evolve in time to deal with specific issues. As below.

So to make comparable analogies. We don't allow travel to use Dignitas. We do allow travel for abortion.

The laws dealing with a person intent on taking their own life presupposes the person not in full possession of their faculties. They can be restrained by the Gardai, sectioned, enzovoort. That is the general case into which the specific restraint wrt travelling abroad finds it place.

Until the issue of assisted suicide is dealt with specifically (probably requiring a referendum), on it's own merits, the general, blunt law will apply.

We would not hesitate to charge someone with murder if they travelled to London and killed their 5 year old child there. Yet we allow them to travel for abortion.

There is a category difference between something that is considered against the law worldwide and something that is legal is large parts of the world. The former is clear cut. The latter, greyer

Not only do we allow the travel for abortion - we explicitly voted on it and copper fastened it into the Constitution.

The NIMBY aspect of this seems lost on you?

It seems to me that your case counters the general approach to availing of the laws of other countries when in those countries, by utilising the Dignitas example (which I've outlined the reason for).

On balance then, the onus would be on you to strengthen your case. Certainly it's far from being as open and shut as you suppose. I mean, you'd only have to have the Dignitas situation overturned at some point and your position would collapse.

pilly wrote: »

Have you ever actually seen a scan rather than keep posting this cartoon. :rolleyes:

looks "practically human" to me. Indeed, you'd be very hard put to avoid that conclusion.


https://youtu.be/ieqWuQma1Q4

uptherebels wrote: »

you seem not to be able to comprehend the meaning of nimbyism

Its not legalising drugs or lowering the age of consent to match other countries
its only having a problem with something inside a geographical location.

There's a problem with smoking cannabis in the street and marrying at the age of 16 in this geographical location.

Is it nimbyism that there is no problem doing these things in countries where its legal?

So its not having a problem with abortion just as long as its not in ireland.
Irish women can have abortions just not here.

There is a problem with abortion here, just as there is with smoking cannabis in public and getting married at 16. Irish people can do all these things in countries were it's legal.


Clearer?