Timberrrrrrrr wrote: You are presuming to speak for your "god" and judging people. You are sinning by presuming to speak for him and judge people for their actions. You should take a long hard look at yourself and maybe rethink your hypocritical stance when preaching to others.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
WhiteRoses wrote: » If you are saying we should take it on a case by case basis how can you possibly say she was wrong then? Because you don’t know what her case involves? So hypocritical.
WhiteRoses wrote: » She owes you no justification or explanation, or anyone else for that matter. It’s none of your business.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It isn’t wrong because we do not prosecute women who travel for abortion, so the law disagrees with you there. So many actually believe it ISN’T wrong that we are having a referendum to allow it in our own country, which speaks for itself. Pretty soon it will be legal here and then you’ll have to find something else to get on your high horse over. Maybe euthanasia? Or legalizing cannabis?
J C wrote: » Procured abortion is undoubtedly the deliberate killing of an unborn child. ... and whether a 12 week old unborn child is a 'baby' ... I'll let the reader decide by looking at this image of a 12 week old unborn child:- Quote:- "The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements. In fact, if you prod your abdomen, your baby will squirm in response, although you won't be able to feel it. His intestines, which have grown so fast that they protrude into the umbilical cord, will start to move into his abdominal cavity about now, and his kidneys will begin excreting urine into his bladder. Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human: His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of his head, and his ears are right where they should be. "https://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-12-weeks_1101.bc
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » JC posting up cartoons again i see :rolleyes:
J C wrote: It's no cartoon ... its an anatomically correct image of a 12 week old fetus ... and it's also no 'bunch of cells' ... unless you consider yourself to be a 'bunch of cells'. ... and if you do, I'll rest my case, on the undoubted Humanity of the unborn child at 12 weeks ... and much earlier, indeed.
pilly wrote: » It's a cartoon son.
J C wrote: » It's no cartoon ... its an anatomically correct image of a 12 week old fetus ... and it's also no 'bunch of cells' ... unless you consider yourself to be a 'bunch of cells'. ... and if you do, I'll rest my case, on the undoubted Humanity of the unborn child at 12 weeks ... and much earlier, indeed.
Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: » If the 76% confirmed Catholics represent 50% of the electorate on voting day then there'll be no repeal. The pro life side need to muzzle the fundamentalists and the Bishops. Nothing like being told to do to drive a voter the other way.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Im sorry JC you are correct in saying its not a cartoon and i apologise for saying that. Anyone can see that it is in fact a computer generated image. Until you show me a picture of an ACTUAL 12 week old foetus then your little drawings/pictures/CGI images are nothing but lame attempts at emotional blackmail.
NaFirinne wrote: » ....... wrote: » What about the lives lost because of the 8th? The maternal mortality rate is only measured for women who have had live births, Savita Halappanavar would not be considered a maternal death for example. Nor would the woman who died in travelling back to Ireland having procured an abortion abroad. Nor would any woman who died as a result of complications post abortion abroad. Maternal mortality rates have little to do with women who have abortions. Apologies I misread the end of your post - it is a health risk not to allow abortion services for many reasons, it affects maternity care, consent in maternity care, it causes a lack of continuity in medical care across 2 jurisdictions, it leaves women open to infection to travel with an open uterus after procuring an abortion abroad, it criminalises and endangers women who procure abortion pills to take at home - which specific issue do you disagree with? The citizens assembly had extensive evidence provided to them by both medical professionals and interest groups and they believed that women are in danger so long as they have to travel for or illegally procure abortion services. The citizens assembly website has nice clickable links that you can use to read the various submissions. When you have looked at the evidence, I have no doubt you will see it is compelling. Your correct abortion does have serious health repercussions for women, which is why we definitely need to save the 8th. Killing another human being should always be a criminal act. Would you advocate a man traveling to a middle east country just so he can legally kill his wife? A human being is a human being no matter what stage of life it's at. Killing is killing. Pro-choice is for giving women the right to sentence their babies to death.
....... wrote: » What about the lives lost because of the 8th? The maternal mortality rate is only measured for women who have had live births, Savita Halappanavar would not be considered a maternal death for example. Nor would the woman who died in travelling back to Ireland having procured an abortion abroad. Nor would any woman who died as a result of complications post abortion abroad. Maternal mortality rates have little to do with women who have abortions. Apologies I misread the end of your post - it is a health risk not to allow abortion services for many reasons, it affects maternity care, consent in maternity care, it causes a lack of continuity in medical care across 2 jurisdictions, it leaves women open to infection to travel with an open uterus after procuring an abortion abroad, it criminalises and endangers women who procure abortion pills to take at home - which specific issue do you disagree with? The citizens assembly had extensive evidence provided to them by both medical professionals and interest groups and they believed that women are in danger so long as they have to travel for or illegally procure abortion services. The citizens assembly website has nice clickable links that you can use to read the various submissions. When you have looked at the evidence, I have no doubt you will see it is compelling.
J C wrote: » To help answer the OP question on whether a Christian can vote for unlimited abortion ... the following is an Irish Times summary of the position of the four main churches in Ireland on the issue ... and it's a no. Quote:- "The Church of Ireland’s two archbishops have said they cannot accept an Oireachtas Committee proposal to allow unrestricted abortion during the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy. They could not accept unrestricted abortion at any stage of pregnancy, they have said. It means that all four main churches in Ireland are now opposed to the recommendation of the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment. The Catholic Church has expressed “vehement opposition” to abortion in all circumstances while the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, as expressed by former moderators Rev Drs Trevor Morrow and Norman Hamilton last month, was “very gravely concerned” about the Committee proposal “to introduce abortion with no restriction as to reason until the twelfth week of gestation, and beyond 12 weeks on health grounds”. In a statement last month also the Methodist Church in Ireland said “our opposition to abortion on demand includes this first trimester”. The church has “consistently been against abortion on demand,” it said.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/church-of-ireland-opposes-unrestricted-abortion-in-first-12-weeks-of-pregnancy-1.3381237
Nettle Soup wrote: » So you are replying to your own OP now? I have to say your posting style is nautious and tries to shut down debate.
Nettle Soup wrote: » posting style is nautious
Nettle Soup wrote: » That is one high horse!! Wow.
J C wrote: » I was quoting an Irish Times article ... and I don't know why this could make you nauseous ... the Irish Times is a paper of record, not known for emotionalism. Yes, I'm attempting to answer my own question allright ... and the answer coming from the four main Churches is a resounding no !! This isn't shutting down debate ... just winning it ... because the pro-abortion proponents don't actually have many valid arguments when faced with the arguments against repealing the 8th and introducing unrestricted abortion. They seem to be relying on pointing to a few hypothetical hard cases ... and then concluding that the solution has to be the repeal of the 8th and unlimited abortion ... which are actually two massive non sequiturs.
end of the road wrote: » nope wrong, no high horse at all. just some home truths which are accurate. i understand they may be uncomfortable, but it's important the truth is told regardless of whether it's comfortable or uncomfortable.
recedite wrote: » I thought the style was concise and contained useful info. I don't think the positions of the minority christian churches has been quoted before on this thread?
Nick Park wrote: » Here is the position of many of the smaller Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, and many independent churches, as explained in Evangelical Alliance Ireland's submission to the Citizens' Assembly. http://www.evangelical.ie/files/EAI_Citizens_Assembly_Submission.pdf
Bubbaclaus wrote: » So after 1,730 posts I think it's pretty clear that the answer is a resounding 'Yes' to the thread question.
NaFirinne wrote: » Your correct abortion does have serious health repercussions for women, which is why we definitely need to save the 8th.
Between 1998 and 2005, one woman died in childbirth for every 11,000 babies born, compared to one of 167,000 women who died due to abortion complications. It’s probably not too surprising considering that women are pregnant for nine months, leaving far more opportunity for complications to arise than in an individual procedure.
Delirium wrote: » If you're concerned about a pregnant womans health, it's seem illogical to oppose repealing the eighth.
end of the road wrote: » on the surface i completely agree. however many people do believe the unborn must have protection as well as the mother's health, and the current proposals don't implement full protection for the unborn right from implantation, which will mean people having no option but to vote no to repeal.
Delirium wrote: But by refusing abortion on request, you're putting the protection of the unborn above that of the womans health. She's not allowed to make the best medical decision for her situation. If she's unwilling to risk her health/life and continue with the pregnancy, that choice should be respected.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » You forget God in all of this. Each one of us must face the judgment seat of God. What are you to say when He knows that you killed an unborn, and did not repent?
Delirium wrote: Well, yes, I'm not Christian
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or not. God is the God of all, Christian, Hindu, Muslim etc. It is still gravely wrong.
