nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

You make Ronán Mullen look caring and compassionate...

Ronan Mullen is a vary caring and compassionate man ... so I'll take that as a compliment.

Anyway, how does a perfectly healthy woman responsibly bringing her child safely to term constitute 'cruel and unusual treatment' ???

... a term that is normally reserved for where extreme torture is used on somebody, often leading to the death of the victim.

Such exaggeration doesn't help the credibility of those making such claims.

J C

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You can't abort at 8 months

Says who?
Quote:-
"What abortion procedures are used during the third trimester?
Third trimester or late term abortions are not legal in a number of states except in certain medical situations. The time frame referred to as late term is often based on when a baby is considered “viable” (able to survive outside the womb). However, the point of “viability” is a grey area in many medical communities. Most medical communities establish 24 weeks gestation, the later part of the second trimester, as the earliest time of viability. Therefore, the availability of any procedure used in the third trimester is based on the laws of that state.

The procedures that can be done in the third trimester include:

Induction Abortion: a rarely done surgical procedure where salt water, urea, or potassium chloride is injected into the amniotic sac; prostaglandins are inserted into the vagina and pitocin is injected intravenously.
Dilation and Extraction: a surgical abortion procedure used to terminate a pregnancy after 21 weeks of gestation. This procedure is also known as D & X, Intact D & X, Intrauterine Cranial Decompression and Partial Birth Abortion."

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

so how exactly will 12 week no restriction abortion of unborn children deal with FFA if it can't be reliably diagnosed, or are you claiming there will be abortion of unborn children permitted after 12 weeks ?

I referenced earlier the other grounds being recommended for the post repeal law.

Maybe you should read through the Oireachtas Committee's recommendations to catch up on what the proposed legislation will be based on. The main body of the report is only 10 pages, so it'll be an easy enough read.

Bob_Marley

NuMarvel wrote: »

It will deal with FFA, which as WR has pointed out is usually diagnosed much later on in a pregnancy.

so how exactly will 12 week no restriction abortion of unborn children deal with FFA if it can't be reliably diagnosed, or are you claiming there will be abortion of unborn children permitted after 12 weeks ?

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

... so doing the decent thing, that the vast majority of women do anyway ... and bringing your child safely to term is 'cruel and unusual treatment' in the land of the extreme femininst ... eh ???

You make Ronán Mullen look caring and compassionate...

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

So in other words if that's the case as you claim, this proposed new legislation won't deal with FFA ?

... so join the dots ... and we can safely conclude that will have abortion, well after 12 weeks as a result.

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

So in other words if that's the case as you claim, this proposed new legislation won't deal with FFA ?

It will deal with FFA, which as WR has pointed out is usually diagnosed much later on in a pregnancy.

However, a fatal foetal abnormality is not a disability, so your statement that the law will allow abortion on the grounds of disability is still untrue.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

ireland can remedy the human rights breaches in relation to abortion (which relates to medically necessary abortions only) via the existing legislation that allows abortion in medically necessary circumstances.

The human rights breaches were both due to cases of FFA, but proposed legislation to include FFA in the current laws was rejected because the advice of the Attorney General was that it would be unconstitutional.

And while the Attorney General is by no means infallible, I'll take their legal opinion over yours any day of the week.

end of the road wrote: »

not providing abortion on demand is not a breach of human rights. the unborn must be protected and to do that, the only option because of the government's proposals is to vote no to repeal to protect their right to life, life being a human right.

A Yes vote won't breach anyone's human rights. A No vote will. It's as simple as that.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Incorrect. Repeal is removing a constitutional provision that doesn't work, and will allow legislation that grants women the right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy. After that point, she will have her rights to life and to be free of cruel and unusual treatment protected, as well as the right to her health up to whatever term limits the legislation sets out.

... so doing the decent thing, that the vast majority of women do anyway ... and bringing your child safely to term is 'cruel and unusual treatment' in the land of the extreme femininst ... eh ???

... and what about the actual cruel and deadly 'treatment' that the aborted child will receive?

NuMarvel wrote: »

The legislation will similarly protect the unborn's rights, because doctors who carry out abortions outside the law will face sanctions. Most importantly, repeal does not infringe the unborn's human rights, because it has never been found that access to abortion breaches those rights.

As it stands, the 8th definitively states that abortion (other than in cases of extremis) most certainly does provide a constitutionally guaranteed right to life of the unborn in Ireland.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

FFA are usually diagnosed at the anamoly scan which normally occurs around 20 weeks.

FFA cannot be detected at 12 weeks so anyone aborting on or before then would not be doing so because of FFA. I have no problem with this.

So in other words if that's the case as you claim, this proposed new legislation won't deal with FFA ?

Ash.J.Williams

J C wrote: »

Why will the abortion laws in this country not be quickly and exactly matched with those of England ... when the main reason for repealing the 8th is to eliminate the reasons for women travelling to England for abortions?

One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"

You can't abort at 8 months

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Why will the abortion laws in this country not be quickly and exactly matched with those of England ... when the main reason for repealing the 8th is to eliminate the reasons for women travelling to England for abortions?

One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"

If you truly believe women will abort at 8 months for a reason such as that, it says a lot about your opinion of women.
Perhaps that’s the kind of company you keep but I certainly don’t know anyone who would abort for such a reason (or any reason actually) at such a late stage of pregnancy.

Bob_Marley

pilly wrote: »

You really need to educate yourself on this issue before you continue on making a fool of yourself son.

I'm not your son, so i'm afraid in this case abortion is out.

So tell us how if FFA and disabilities can't be reliably diagnosed at 12 weeks as is being now claimed, how do you deal with FFA ?

and what restrictions will be in place for no restriction abortion ?

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Scaremongering at its finest.
There is no such agenda to do that. It’s taken us what, 30 years? to even organize a referendum to repeal this stupid and barbaric amendment.
If you really believe this would happen then you are delusional.

Why will the abortion laws in this country not be quickly and exactly matched with those of England ... when the main reason for repealing the 8th is to eliminate the reasons for women travelling to England for abortions?

One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

so if as you claim you cannot detect nearly all disabilities at 12 weeks how are you going to reliably diagnose FFA ?

FFA are usually diagnosed at the anamoly scan which normally occurs around 20 weeks.

FFA cannot be detected at 12 weeks so anyone aborting on or before then would not be doing so because of FFA. I have no problem with this.

Bob_Marley

pilly wrote: »

Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.

Do tell us, what restrictions are going to be imposed on 'no restriction' abortion up to 12 weeks ?

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Your point was that people would abort due to gender or disability.
I pointed out that neither can be determined on or before 12 weeks.
You were the one who brought up FFA, not me. And I never said the unborn were moot, I said your point was. Which it is. Don’t put words in my mouth.

so if as you claim you cannot detect nearly all disabilities at 12 weeks how are you going to reliably diagnose FFA ?

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

There's no limit abortion proposed for the first 12 weeks of life, no getting away from that fact either i'm afraid.

If there's a time limit, then it's defacto NOT unlimited.

BTW, the first 12 weeks of life are generally regarded as from birth, not conception. Unless you add 9 months to your age anytime you're asked.

pilly

Bob_Marley wrote:

really ? so that would rule out the 'fetal abnormality' case as well them unborn children are not moot.

You really need to educate yourself on this issue before you continue on making a fool of yourself son.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

That could be resolved by extending the time for on-demand abortion to 24 weeks ... and for disability up to 9 months ... as is currently the case in England.

... there will be nothing to stop this barbarity ... if the 8th is repealed.

Scaremongering at its finest.
There is no such agenda to do that. It’s taken us what, 30 years? to even organize a referendum to repeal this stupid and barbaric amendment.
If you really believe this would happen then you are delusional.

J C

pilly wrote: »

Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.

Why is it lies ... where is the protection from gender-specific abortion, for example, where abortion is available on demand?

pilly

end of the road wrote:

100% correct.

100% lies

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The repeal is removing rights, not adding them. No avoiding that glaring elephant i'm afraid.

Incorrect. Repeal is removing a constitutional provision that doesn't work, and will allow legislation that grants women the right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy. After that point, she will have her rights to life and to be free of cruel and unusual treatment protected, as well as the right to her health up to whatever term limits the legislation sets out.

The legislation will similarly protect the unborn's rights, because doctors who carry out abortions outside the law will face sanctions. Most importantly, repeal does not infringe the unborn's human rights, because it has never been found that access to abortion breaches those rights.

pilly

Bob_Marley wrote:

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Gender and pretty much all disabilities cannot be detected at 12 weeks so your point is moot.

That could be resolved by extending the time for on-demand abortion to 24 weeks ... and for disability up to 9 months ... as is currently the case in England.

... there will be nothing to stop this barbarity from happening ... if the 8th is repealed.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

really ? so that would rule out the 'fetal abnormality' case as well them unborn children are not moot.

Your point was that people would abort due to gender or disability.
I pointed out that neither can be determined on or before 12 weeks.
You were the one who brought up FFA, not me. And I never said the unborn were moot, I said your point was. Which it is. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Gender and pretty much all disabilities cannot be detected at 12 weeks so your point is moot.

really ? so that would rule out the 'fetal abnormality' case as well them

unborn children are not moot.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

There's no limit abortion proposed for the first 12 weeks of life, no getting away from that fact either i'm afraid.

Gender and pretty much all disabilities cannot be detected at 12 weeks so your point is moot.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Those are internationally recognised human rights and those views have been reached by experts in the field after hearing from both sides on the matter.

You can't invoke human rights and expect to be taken seriously when you reject actual human rights laws in favour of whatever version you've cooked up to suit your arguments.

A one-sided Human Right giving 100% rights to women and 0% to their unborn child is a perversion of 'equality' ... and it doesn't matter how many so-called 'experts' have concocted it ... it's still a perversion of equality ... that should be rejected by all right thinking people.

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's little point replying to my post if you're not actually going to address what I've said. Repealing the 8th doesn't breach human rights; keeping it does. It is as simple as that.

In the world of the pro-abortionist, that may be the perception ... but in the real world that everyone else lives in, the stripping away of all constitutional protection for the unborn right up to birth, does breach the human right to life of the unborn ... and puts them at imminent risk of death by abortion.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll say it again because you seem to have missed my point the first time: Nobody's human rights are ignored, denied, or removed by repeal of the 8th. Access to abortion is NOT a breach of human rights.

On the other hand, Ireland IS in breach of human rights because of our abortion laws, and we can't remedy that until we repeal the 8th. To use your turn of phrase, you don't enhance human rights for the unborn by actively ignoring and denying the rights of the woman.

BUT if you want to insist the unborn has human rights, then I remind you we already put the freedom to travel and to access information ABOVE all of the unborn's rights. And if you don't object to that, which no one does, then there's no basis for treating bodily autonomy in the same way.

ireland can remedy the human rights breaches in relation to abortion (which relates to medically necessary abortions only) via the existing legislation that allows abortion in medically necessary circumstances. not providing abortion on demand is not a breach of human rights. the unborn must be protected and to do that, the only option because of the government's proposals is to vote no to repeal to protect their right to life, life being a human right.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

100% correct.