Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C · 04-02-2018 08:39PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful commenr by a so called "christian"! You seem to think that when a woman chooses to have an abortion (for whatever her reason is) that she makes this decision on a whim as if she is decidung between a caramel mocha or a frappachino!

Disgusting and vile post!

If you are as disgusted, as you claim to be about the idea that a woman might abort on a whim ... why don't you campaign for abortion to only be allowed for serious issues affecting the mother and/or child? That would put the issue of abortion on a whim beyond doubt.

If we have abortion on demand, I'm sure some women will abort on a whim ... which will be allowed under the proposed legislation.

If she has given serious consideration and decides to abort a healthy child while she herself is also perfectly healthy, then she will just have added pre-meditation to her already grossly immoral decision to kill her unborn child.

Of course, it may not be the woman who will be the prime mover in all of this ... but a family member or a partner pressuring her into having the abortion.

smacl · 04-02-2018 08:59PM

J C wrote: »

I'm not in the least patronising ... but I'm a little fed up by the 'too posh to push' brigade not being too posh to kill their unborn child ... just because they want to

A man trying to support their rather dubious argument with a term like too posh to push epitomizes the worst type of patronising and misogynistic nonsense we've seen on this thread. Are you not even vaguely circumspect in subjecting other people to hardships you'll never have to face yourself?

J C · 04-02-2018 09:08PM

smacl wrote: »

A man trying to support their rather dubious argument with a term like too posh to push epitomizes the worst type of patronising and misogynistic nonsense we've seen on this thread. Are you not even vaguely circumspect in subjecting other people to hardships you'll never have to face yourself?

I'm concerned about visiting death upon innocent Human life for any reason except for extremely serious ones.

I'm also concerned that the undoubted pain of women with serious health issues during pregnancy is being exploited by people to push for unlimited abortion ... when the two are totally different moral and human scenarios.

None of this is misogyny ... unless you're saying that it is normal and acceptable behaviour for perfectly healthy women to kill their perfectly healthy unborn children.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-02-2018 09:27PM

J C wrote: »

If you are as disgusted, as you claim to be about the idea that a woman might abort on a whim ... why don't you campaign for abortion to only be allowed for serious issues affecting the mother and/or child? That would put the issue of abortion on a whim beyond doubt.

If we have abortion on demand, I'm sure some women will abort on a whim ... which will be allowed under the proposed legislation.

If she has given serious consideration and decides to abort a healthy child while she herself is also perfectly healthy, then she will just have added pre-meditation to her already grossly immoral decision to kill her unborn child.

Of course, it may not be the woman who will be the prime mover in all of this ... but a family member or a partner pressuring her into having the abortion.

And you follow up with another vile post that denegtates women and puts them in the same catagory as a cold blooded killer.

The mask slips and your true colours start to show.

Disgraceful.

SusieBlue · 04-02-2018 09:33PM

JC, I’m trying to understand your world view here but I’m struggling and coming up empty.

Out of curiosity, how did you vote in the same sex marriage referendum?
And if you were of age at the time, how did you vote in the divorce referendum?

J C · 04-02-2018 09:39PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And you follow up with another vile post that denegtates women and puts them in the same catagory as a cold blooded killer.

The mask slips and your true colours start to show.

Disgraceful.

Where is there an error in the logic of what I have said?

You are the one taking about cold blooded killing ... not me.

Do you think that a decision to abort a healthy child while the woman herself is also perfectly healthy, is a morally corrrect decision?

Delirium · 04-02-2018 09:43PM

J C wrote: »

Please stop putting words in my mouth, that I didn't say.
I said that the production of 'surplus' embryos should be avoided.

I didn't anything of the sort. It was a question as clearly denoted by the question mark. And unless all embryos are implanted, then they are by definition surplus. If you don't want to answer a question, fine. But please don't pretend I did something that my post clearly shows I didn't.

It all depends on what you call 'motherhood'. If you mean that she should have to be a parent to her child when it is born ... then I'm not saying that ... the option of fosterage or adoption should be available to her.
If by 'motherhood' you mean that she should continue with her pregnancy to viability of her unborn child, then yes, she should behave as the mother that she has become to her unborn child, as a result of her pregnancy.
... and being a mother to your child doesn't give you the right to kill it.

Yes, I meant mother in the biological sense as we are discussing abortion. Also, I am saying that women shouldn't have to become mothers just because they are pregnant. That they should have a choice in the matter.

They are all Human life deserving of the respect and protection that this implies.

So frozen embryos should be implanted rather than stored indefinitely or discarded? <- Please the question mark

With a newborn, or indeed a young born child ... potential isn't the same thing as actual either ... but this doesn't give anybody the right to cut off their potential by killing them.

What? I don't recall ever stating that a newborn or infant ain't a person? Or advocating for infanticide so not sure where you're going with that comment??

... all protection for unborn children will possibly be moot if the 8th is repealed and unlimited abortion is introduced.

Nonsense. The nation isn't going to start aborting 100% of all pregnancies so the unborn will still have protection.

Delirium · 04-02-2018 09:49PM

J C wrote: »

The Shelia Hodgers case pre-dates the introduction of the 8th with its focus on the state doing everything practicable to save the life of both the unborn child and her mother.
Thankfully this wouldn't happen now ... so it has no relevance to whether we vote for unlimited abortion with the repeal of the 8th.

You are joking. There are women currently required to travel abroad for medically necessary abortion, fatal foetal abnormalities being one such example, because we have a restrictive medical policy embedded in the constitution.

To pretend that Irish healthcare is providing the best that it can for pregnant women is silly. And that's before even touching abortion. There are standard procedures and scans that are not carried out in Ireland because if a bad result is found then the 8th amendment puts the woman and the medical staff in a legally difficult position.

Timberrrrrrrr · 04-02-2018 09:51PM

J C wrote: »

Where is there an error in the logic of what I have said?

You are the one taking about cold blooded killing ... not me.

Do you think that a decision to abort a healthy child while the woman herself is also perfectly healthy, is a morally corrrect decision?

J C wrote: »

I have disdain for men and women who kill their unborn child for no reason other than they want to ... and I think most reasonable people would share my view on this.

Is Human life to be so cheap that anybody who wants to kill their unborn child should be allowed to do so, even if both the mother and her child are perfectly healthy?

Having said that, I would be the first to support such people, if or when they are hurting after their abortion.

J C wrote: »

I'm not in the least patronising ... but I'm a little fed up by the 'too posh to push' brigade not being too posh to kill their unborn child ... just because they want to.

There are serious life and death situations where abortion is necessary ... but it is sickening, quite frankly, for perfectly healthy women and their so-called partners utilising the plight of these seriously ill women, to campaign to be allowed kill their unborn children ... for no other reason, than just because they want to.

If you cannot see what is wrong with what you have written then i truly despair for you as you are so blinded by your religious views that you can only see this issue in black and white. With comments like that you obviously have no respect for women and just see them as incubators.

J C · 04-02-2018 09:56PM

Delirium wrote: »

I didn't anything of the sort. It was a question as clearly denoted by the question mark. And unless all embryos are implanted, then they are by definition surplus. If you don't want to answer a question, fine. But please don't pretend I did something that my post clearly shows I didn't.

I have answered your question ... and I said that surplus embryos shouldn't be created

Delirium wrote: »

Yes, I meant mother in the biological sense as we are discussing abortion. Also, I am saying that women shouldn't have to become mothers just because they are pregnant. That they should have a choice in the matter.

A pregnant woman has already become a mother ... whether she wants to continue with motherhood is a decision she may morally make when her child is safely delivered.

Delirium wrote: »

So frozen embryos should be implanted rather than stored indefinitely or discarded? <- Please the question mark

They shouldn't be created, in the first place.

Delirium wrote: »

What? I don't recall ever stating that a newborn or infant ain't a person? Or advocating for infanticide so not sure where you're going with that comment??

I was pointing out that potential exists along all stages of life ... and isn't a valid argument to say that because a Human's potential hasn't been realised yet, they can be aborted.

Delirium wrote: »

Nonsense. The nation isn't going to start aborting 100% of all pregnancies so the unborn will still have protection.

They will have no protection under law ... the percentge that will be killed, as a result, is a moot point, for any unborn children who are killed.
We will then have zero tolerance for killing born children ... and full tolerance for killing unborn children (up to 12 weeks, anyway).
... a grossly immoral situation.

end of the road · 04-02-2018 10:01PM

Delirium wrote: »

Nonsense. The nation isn't going to start aborting 100% of all pregnancies so the unborn will still have protection.

they won't have protection from the law and the state. the protection will only rely on them being wanted. they need to be protected whether they are wanted or not, just like new born children.

Delirium · 04-02-2018 10:04PM

J C wrote: »

Only a tiny minority is actively campaigning on either side of the debate.

Which is why I mentioned polling and women who had abortions also (which you decided to ignore in your response).

Its a fact that they are campaigning for and support the introduction of abortion on demand ... which is the killing of unborn children on demand.
I never said that this was sociopathic ... you are the one characterising this behaviour as such.

You're the one who said that there are women who want a lifestyle that facilitates killing unborn children. You didn't quantify or qualify it. A lifestyle is something you engage in on an ongoing basis otherwise it's not a lifestyle. So how else would you describe a woman who continuously gets pregnant repeatedly for no reason other than to have lots of abortions? Have you any evidence of women with these tendencies or you just throwing mud?

'Baiting' people with hard case stories and then 'switching' the solution to abortion on demand is also deeply hypocritical IMO. It's exploiting the undoubted pain of hard cases, to introduce unlimited abortion just because somebody wants to. The two are not remotely comparable.

You can direct that criticism to someone that it applies to. I've been totally upfront that abortion should be available on request to any woman in the early stages of the pregnancy.

Having a child (and parenting it) should be a choice ... killing it should not be a choice.

You're contradicting yourself as you support legally mandating all pregnant women must have the child. No choice for the woman at all.

... its worse than that ... they aparently love nothing better than campaigning for and voting for unlimted abortion ... while pointing to hard cases as justification for this completely disproportionate response.

There is a certain degree of irony in that comment considering your use of cleft palettes and down syndrome in this discussion. The problem pro-life people like yourself has is that the hard cases are impacted by the 8th. Things like fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest can't currently be considered due to the 8th.

With hard cases women certainly do ... and they should be facilitated ... but do you think that a perfectly healthy woman who aborts has given any meaningful consideration to the killing of her unborn child?

Yes. I refuse to accept your premise that no women ever think long and hard about having an abortion. It's quite an insulting generalisation to all the women who've ever had abortion. Seriously, you're one step away from 'women have candyfloss for brains':rolleyes:

J C · 04-02-2018 10:05PM

Delirium wrote: »

You are joking. There are women currently required to travel abroad for medically necessary abortion, fatal foetal abnormalities being one such example, because we have a restrictive medical policy embedded in the constitution.

To pretend that Irish healthcare is providing the best that it can for pregnant women is silly. And that's before even touching abortion. There are standard procedures and scans that are not carried out in Ireland because if a bad result is found then the 8th amendment puts the woman and the medical staff in a legally difficult position.

Our healthcare system can obviously be improved for everyone.
... and additional legisaltion can be introduced for hard cases under the 8th ... and if futher enabling legislation is needed it should be provided.

Opening the floodgates to unlimited abortion isn't a proportionate reaction.

J C · 04-02-2018 10:09PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If you cannot see what is wrong with what you have written then i truly despair for you as you are so blinded by your religious views that you can only see this issue in black and white. With comments like that you obviously have no respect for women and just see them as incubators.

You're the one making 'black and white' statements about me!!
I can see that there are situations of 'grey' in the whole abortion issue ... but that is no reason to open the floodgates to unlimited abortion.

Delirium · 04-02-2018 10:17PM

J C wrote: »

I have answered your question ... and I said that surplus embryos shouldn't be created

How do they know they're surplus? Multiple embryos are created because not all implantations are successful, much like the natural method. So surplus embryos are always going to exist. Seriously, a basic understanding of biology would reveal that anybody.

So a woman successfully gets pregnant but has two more embryos left. Is she now required to implant those two?

A pregnant woman has already become a mother ... whether she wants to continue with motherhood is a decision she may morally make when her child is safely delivered.

Disagree. Just because an embryo successfully implanted does not mean that woman is now to become a mother. Especially as you said a human life begins at fertilization. Women use contraceptives to stop implantation .By your line of thinking, those devices/pills should be outlawed as it's killing an unborn.

They shouldn't be created, in the first place.

Answered above. And that comment doesn't address the reality of the situation.

I was pointing out that potential exists along all stages of life ... and isn't a valid argument to say that because a Human's potential hasn't been realised yet, they can be aborted.

A foetus is a potential person. An infant is a person. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp the distinction.

They will have no protection under law ... the percentge that will be killed, as a result, is a moot point, for any unborn children who are killed.
We will then have zero tolerance for killing born children ... and full tolerance for killing unborn children (up to 12 weeks, anyway).
... a grossly immoral situation.

That suggest that a significantly higher number of women would have abortions if international travel was taken out of the equation. That's a good reason that the 8th should go tbh.

Delirium · 04-02-2018 10:19PM

J C wrote: »

Our healthcare system can obviously be improved for everyone.
... and additional legisaltion can be introduced for hard cases under the 8th ... and if futher enabling legislation is needed it should be provided.

Opening the floodgates to unlimited abortion isn't a proportionate reaction.

Having another constitutional referendum every time another hard case arises is not the way to implement medical policy.

Delirium · 04-02-2018 10:30PM

MOD NOTE

Just a note to folks to take some of the heat out of their comments as it's starting to wander into antagonistic language (I include myself in that as one of my posts was probably a bit snippy to JC. Apologies, JC).

Thanks for your attention.

Manach · 04-02-2018 10:34PM

Delirium wrote: »

A foetus is a potential person. An infant is a person. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp the distinction.

That is uninformed and wrong. At one end there are bioethicists who argue that the personhood is only achieved after several years and hence infanticide is perfectly acceptable - as per Peter Singer. On the other one can look into the work of legal analysts like John McKweon (book Law and Ethics of Medicine) that argue there is a continuation of the biological entity from unborn to child and so legal protections are a right. To strip away the concept of legal rights based on the dubious concept of personhood looks to degrade the inherent worth of human life.

Delirium · 04-02-2018 10:43PM

Manach wrote: »

That is uninformed and wrong. At one end there are bioethicists who argue that the personhood is only achieved after several years and hence infanticide is perfectly acceptable - as per Peter Singer. On the other one can look into the work of legal analysts like John McKweon (book Law and Ethics of Medicine) that argue there is a continuation of the biological entity from unborn to child and so legal protections are a right. To strip away the concept of legal rights based on the dubious concept of personhood looks to degrade the inherent worth of human life.

With respect, I was answering with my own opinion on the matter rather than the world authority of Personhood.

And even your reply puts my opinion between the opposing views on the matter.

Plus I've already said I don't know when personhood begins and that my own view on abortion is allow it early in the pregnancy weeks before any foetus would be considered viable. So the 12 weeks on request limit is an acceptable limit from my perspective.

end of the road · 04-02-2018 10:57PM

Delirium wrote: »

That suggest that a significantly higher number of women would have abortions if international travel was taken out of the equation. That's a good reason that the 8th should go tbh.

in what way would an increase in the abortion rate be a good reason that the 8th should go? unless i'm misunderstanding your point?

Delirium · 04-02-2018 11:08PM

end of the road wrote: »

in what way would an increase in the abortion rate be a good reason that the 8th should go? unless i'm misunderstanding your point?

The suggestion was that a lot more women would have abortions if travel wasn't an issue. This could be due to poverty, disability or legal barriers to leaving the country.

JC was suggesting that abortion would dramatically increase if the 8th was to go. It posed the scenario that the situation is markedly worse than we think it is for pregnant women in Ireland. Or that hyperbole is in play and the rates wouldn't change all that much but women could have the abortions here.

ABC101 · 04-02-2018 11:24PM

I've been keeping a eye on the thread a bit, but not saying much. However.... a thought struck me and I do have a question for the pro abortion / pro choice side etc.

Normal human gestation is around 40 weeks. Pro choice / pro abortion advocates tend to use the term / prefer the term fetus and not person to describe the human life growing in the womb.

With advances in medical science / understanding etc, it is possible to remove (from the womb) a foetus at 24 weeks, place the premature born baby in a controlled environment (incubator) and with various expertise the baby can continue to develop to 40 weeks and onwards etc.

So my question to the pro choice / advocates of abortion is.... is a foetus (in the womb) at 25 weeks (or more) to be considered not a person, but a 24 week premature baby in a incubator can be classified as a person?

Fundamentally both beings are at the same stage of development, it's just one being is inside the womb, whilst the other is in a incubator (artificial womb).

If the answer is yes, then expanding the logic..

Could it be possible to consider a 32 week old foetus (in the womb) to be a non person, but a 25 week old premature baby in a incubator a person? In this case different stages of development.

Final comment, if a human foetus can survive outside the womb at 24 weeks (with medical assistance) then could a 24 week old foetus be considered a human person?

If medical science were to advance to the point where a 12 week foetus could be transferred to a special incubator and continue to develop as a normal baby human, then could the point a which society were to consider a foetus a person be revised downwards?

J C · 04-02-2018 11:57PM

Delirium wrote: »

Having another constitutional referendum every time another hard case arises is not the way to implement medical policy.

I agree.
... but there is no need to do this ... one of the problems after the 8th was passed was that no legisation was passed to implement the principles contained in the 8th. This led to situations where women's lives were put at risk needlessly because legislation that could, indeed should have been enacted wasn't. Judges repeatedly referred to this ommission.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, was a long-overdue piece of legislation ... 30 years overdue, to be precise. Further legislation to deal with hard cases, such as fatal foetal abnormalities, for example, could be enacted under the 8th.

smacl · 05-02-2018 12:06AM

ABC101 wrote: »

If medical science were to advance to the point where a 12 week foetus could be transferred to a special incubator and continue to develop as a normal baby human, then could the point a which society were to consider a foetus a person be revised downwards?

My own opinion is that there is a huge difference between survivability and being grown from an early gestational stage in-vitro. There's nothing to say that science may not progress where a person can be grown entirely in-vitro but you still have to choose a developmental stage where you start calling the foetus a baby. My opinion would be when measurable brain activity moves beyond a rudimentary stage. Maybe science might even reach the stage where the foetus could be transferred to the innards of a middle-aged pro-life bloke, though I imagine they might become scarcer at that point

J C · 05-02-2018 12:20AM

Delirium wrote: »

How do they know they're surplus? Multiple embryos are created because not all implantations are successful, much like the natural method. So surplus embryos are always going to exist. Seriously, a basic understanding of biology would reveal that anybody.

So a woman successfully gets pregnant but has two more embryos left. Is she now required to implant those two?

Not necessarily ... but there is a moral imperative to treat them with respect. They could be 'adopted' by another woman wishing to become pregnant, but finding it impossible with her own eggs.

Delirium wrote: »

Disagree. Just because an embryo successfully implanted does not mean that woman is now to become a mother. Especially as you said a human life begins at fertilization. Women use contraceptives to stop implantation .By your line of thinking, those devices/pills should be outlawed as it's killing an unborn.

Their primary method of operation is by preventing ovulation. A secondary mechanism may prevent implantaion.
These contraceptives haven't been adjudged to fall foul of the 8th ... so no need to repeal the 8th to allow the morning after pill.
The 8th is a reasonably balanced piece of equality legislation.

Delirium wrote: »

A foetus is a potential person. An infant is a person. It shouldn't be that difficult to grasp the distinction.

How do you define a person? It would seem to me that a baby-like foetus is no more or less a person than a newborn. A newborn is almost as helpless and under-developed (relative to an adult) as a foetus is. A newborn can't walk, talk or even control it's limbs or bodily functions. There is no substantive difference between a newborn and a 10-week old foetus.

Delirium wrote: »

That suggest that a significantly higher number of women would have abortions if international travel was taken out of the equation. That's a good reason that the 8th should go tbh.

The idea should be to minimise abortions (which almost everyone agrees are not good for either women or children).
... introducing legislation to open the floodgates to unlimited abortion is going the wrong way IMO.
... its just increasing the long-term misery for women who have abortions ... and increasing the killing of unborn children.

recedite · 05-02-2018 12:32AM

Delirium wrote: »

..I've already said I don't know when personhood begins and that my own view on abortion is allow it early in the pregnancy weeks before any foetus would be considered viable. So the 12 weeks on request limit is an acceptable limit from my perspective.

That's probably a reasonably common view. So if we take the first 8 or 9 weeks as being the embryonic stage, the embryo is not known as "a foetus" until after that. The foetus is more highly developed, a lot more human or baby like in various ways.

However this referendum is all about withdrawing the constitutional right to life from every foetus right up until the moment of birth. Which means they can live or be killed at the discretion of future politicians, medical science, owners, or parents.

The alternative would be to declare via a different referendum wording, that the provisions of the 8th would only kick in after the 8 weeks (or 12 weeks or whatever) That would protect the right to life for any unborn entity older than that, just as they are currently protected. But if the mothers life was endangered by the pregnancy, the foetus would still be aborted, as per the current situation.

Then separately there is this vague proposal for the politicians to legislate for abortion afterwards (assuming the total repeal of the 8th succeeds). Currently they are saying up to 12 weeks, but that could change at any time, eg if any govt. is tight on numbers and needs a few extra TDs to stay in power. That proposal would have to make it through the Dail as per any other bill, and would be completely independent of the constitutional change.

J C · 05-02-2018 12:49AM

smacl wrote: »

My own opinion is that there is a huge difference between survivability and being grown from an early gestational stage in-vitro. There's nothing to say that science may not progress where a person can be grown entirely in-vitro but you still have to choose a developmental stage where you start calling the foetus a baby. My opinion would be when measurable brain activity moves beyond a rudimentary stage. Maybe science might even reach the stage where the foetus could be transferred to the innards of a middle-aged pro-life bloke, though I imagine they might become scarcer at that point

I agree that viability outside the uterus isn't a good basis for determining when abortion can be legitimately performed. However, it could be used to determine when a caesarian could be used instead of an induced abortion, to save a woman's life, for example.
The main reason why killing another human is morally repugnant is because it cuts short their potential for life ... and the potential is greatest, the younger the person is when they are killed. For this reason child killing is regarded as the most reprehensible of all killings.
Abortion is somewhere in-between morally due to the possibility of risk to the mothers life from a pregnancy.

Cabaal · 05-02-2018 06:15AM

end of the road wrote: »

they won't have protection from the law and the state. the protection will only rely on them being wanted. they need to be protected whether they are wanted or not, just like new born children.

But you simply cannot give the same protection to a fetus as a born baby, unless you charge women with murder for taking pills and investigate every single miscarriage to ensure it wasn't a murder.

Delirium · 05-02-2018 09:52AM

recedite wrote: »

That's probably a reasonably common view. So if we take the first 8 or 9 weeks as being the embryonic stage, the embryo is not known as "a foetus" until after that. The foetus is more highly developed, a lot more human or baby like in various ways.

However this referendum is all about withdrawing the constitutional right to life from every foetus right up until the moment of birth. Which means they can live or be killed at the discretion of future politicians, medical science, owners, or parents.

The alternative would be to declare via a different referendum wording, that the provisions of the 8th would only kick in after the 8 weeks (or 12 weeks or whatever) That would protect the right to life for any unborn entity older than that, just as they are currently protected. But if the mothers life was endangered by the pregnancy, the foetus would still be aborted, as per the current situation.

Then separately there is this vague proposal for the politicians to legislate for abortion afterwards (assuming the total repeal of the 8th succeeds). Currently they are saying up to 12 weeks, but that could change at any time, eg if any govt. is tight on numbers and needs a few extra TDs to stay in power. That proposal would have to make it through the Dail as per any other bill, and would be completely independent of the constitutional change.

As it should be tbh. Every other country in the world manages without abortion policy embedded in the constitution, and they have abortion policies that vary from highly restrictive to the other side of the pendulum.

Delirium · 05-02-2018 10:09AM

J C wrote: »

Not necessarily ... but there is a moral imperative to treat them with respect. They could be 'adopted' by another woman wishing to become pregnant, but finding it impossible with her own eggs.

Sure, but the question was do they get the same legal protection as embryos/ foetuses in the womb? And if they do, then should the law require all of them to be implanted instead of stored indefinitely or destroyed?

Their primary method of operation is by preventing ovulation. A secondary mechanism may prevent implantaion.
These contraceptives haven't been adjudged to fall foul of the 8th ... so no need to repeal the 8th to allow the morning after pill.
The 8th is a reasonably balanced piece of equality legislation.

I wouldn't consider it equality legislation, never mind 'reasonably balanced'. The removal of informed consent for pregnant women would be one mark against it to start with.

How do you define a person? It would seem to me that a baby-like foetus is no more or less a person than a newborn. A newborn is almost as helpless and under-developed (relative to an adult) as a foetus is. A newborn can't walk, talk or even control it's limbs or bodily functions. There is no substantive difference between a newborn and a 10-week old foetus.

o_O
a 10 week old foetus requires a biological connection to a woman to have any hope of survival. That's pretty huge difference!

The existence of a brain would be start. Or would you argue that a person exists without a brain?

The idea should be to minimise abortions (which almost everyone agrees are not good for either women or children).
... introducing legislation to open the floodgates to unlimited abortion is going the wrong way IMO.
... its just increasing the long-term misery for women who have abortions ... and increasing the killing of unborn children.

I don't know what you're referring to with 'long-term misery for women' as studies have shown that 'abortion regret' is the exception not the norm for women who have abortions.

I'd also ask what you mean by abortions not being good for women. There are risks to health and life for the woman. Why can she not choose what is best for her health? If she doesn't feel up to the risks or the mental/physical demands of a pregnancy, who are we to decide we know better?

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments