Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C · 08-02-2018 12:27AM

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?"

Bob_Marley · 08-02-2018 12:27AM

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 ?

SusieBlue · 08-02-2018 12:28AM

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 08-02-2018 12:30AM

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

Bob_Marley · 08-02-2018 12:32AM

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 ?

J C · 08-02-2018 12:32AM

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.

NuMarvel · 08-02-2018 12:33AM

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.

NuMarvel · 08-02-2018 12:40AM

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.

J C · 08-02-2018 12:40AM

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 · 08-02-2018 12:44AM

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...

Bob_Marley · 08-02-2018 12:44AM

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 · 08-02-2018 12:49AM

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.

J C · 08-02-2018 12:49AM

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."

J C · 08-02-2018 12:57AM

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 · 08-02-2018 01:02AM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

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

... I guess there will be no restrictions.

NuMarvel · 08-02-2018 01:04AM

J C wrote: »

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.

It was the term used by human rights experts to describe Amanda Mellet's and Siobhan Whelan's experiences. I'd tell you to read up on them, but I honestly don't think it would make a blind bit of difference.

J C · 08-02-2018 01:14AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

Nothing to do with my opinion of women, for whom I have the highest regard.

Quote:-
"Lord Alton, an independent crossbench peer, said of the figures: 'Aborting a baby with a cleft palate should be unconscionable. For the law to allow this up to birth should be unthinkable.'

Church of England curate, the Reverend Joanna Jepson, who was born with a jaw deformity, said: 'That this kind of discrimination is on the rise shows just how far we are from being the humane and tolerant society we claim to be.'

Ms Jepson rose to prominence by speaking out against abortions when babies have a cleft palate after a case in 2003 where a baby with one was terminated at 28 weeks. She called for the doctor responsible to be prosecuted."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761905/Fury-number-abortions-cleft-lip-babies-rises-new-womb-tests-offered.html

Quote:-
"Twenty-six pregnancies have been aborted in the past nine years because babies would have been born with cleft lips or palates, according to figures released yesterday after a High Court ruling.

The abortions, which included one foetus terminated after the 24-week legal limit, were described as “appalling” by pro-life campaigners, who said disabled babies should be afforded the same right to life as others.

The Department of Health statistics, which go back almost a decade, were released after a six-year legal battle. They reveal that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 terminations on the grounds that there was a “substantial risk” that the babies would be “seriously handicapped” — known as Ground E abortions. Of these, 1,189 were aborted after 24 weeks, after which there must be such a serious risk for an abortion to be legal if the mother is not in danger. Last year 147 foetuses were aborted after 24 weeks, a rise of 29 per cent since 2002.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8616978/Twenty-six-babies-aborted-for-cleft-lips-or-palates.html

Bob_Marley · 08-02-2018 01:21AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

But what is your understanding of how 12 week no restriction abortion of unborn children deals with a supposed FFA if it can't be reliably diagnosed at 12 weeks as is now being claimed, and what additional further abortions of unborn children will be permitted after 12 weeks that are not already ?

end of the road · 08-02-2018 01:30AM

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.

not at all, telling the facts won't be better for the repeal side. as long as enough people except the facts, repeal will lose.

pilly wrote: »

100% lies

not at all. i see nothing to suggest to me that the poster is telling lies.

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.

not scaremongering at all. just reality long term. it may have taken us 30 years to have a referendum to repeal the 8th, which dispite it's many problems is equality legislation in terms of the unborn, but once the cat is out of the bag then the time limits will eventually increase. if you really believe this won't happen long term you are deluded because no way will 12 weeks be excepted as the limit long term. so we have to stop it in it's tracks now.

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

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

it will remove the right to life of the unborn, which must not be allowed to happen in this country for the greater good of society.

J C wrote: »

Nothing to do with my opinion of women, for whom I have the highest regard.

Quote:-
"Lord Alton, an independent crossbench peer, said of the figures: 'Aborting a baby with a cleft palate should be unconscionable. For the law to allow this up to birth should be unthinkable.'

Church of England curate, the Reverend Joanna Jepson, who was born with a jaw deformity, said: 'That this kind of discrimination is on the rise shows just how far we are from being the humane and tolerant society we claim to be.'

Ms Jepson rose to prominence by speaking out against abortions when babies have a cleft palate after a case in 2003 where a baby with one was terminated at 28 weeks. She called for the doctor responsible to be prosecuted."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761905/Fury-number-abortions-cleft-lip-babies-rises-new-womb-tests-offered.html

Quote:-
"Twenty-six pregnancies have been aborted in the past nine years because babies would have been born with cleft lips or palates, according to figures released yesterday after a High Court ruling.

The abortions, which included one foetus terminated after the 24-week legal limit, were described as “appalling” by pro-life campaigners, who said disabled babies should be afforded the same right to life as others.

The Department of Health statistics, which go back almost a decade, were released after a six-year legal battle. They reveal that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 terminations on the grounds that there was a “substantial risk” that the babies would be “seriously handicapped” — known as Ground E abortions. Of these, 1,189 were aborted after 24 weeks, after which there must be such a serious risk for an abortion to be legal if the mother is not in danger. Last year 147 foetuses were aborted after 24 weeks, a rise of 29 per cent since 2002.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8616978/Twenty-six-babies-aborted-for-cleft-lips-or-palates.html

jesus this is frightening stuff. absolutely horrific considering a cleft lip or palate can easily be treated.

J C · 08-02-2018 01:35AM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

But what is your understanding of how 12 week no restriction abortion of unborn children deals with a supposed FFA if it can't be reliably diagnosed at 12 weeks as is now being claimed, and what additional further abortions of unborn children will be permitted after 12 weeks that are not already ?

Quote from the Oireactas Committee:-
"The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit.
The Committee, while noting the burden placed on the woman and the family in such situations, does not accept that these are sufficient grounds for termination.
The Committee therefore does not accept this recommendation of the Citizens Assembly.
2.35. The Committee recommends that the law should not provide for the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the unborn child has a significant foetal abnormality where such abnormality is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth."

While 12 weeks is the current proposed limit for abortion on demand ... the Citizens Assembly recommendations (that is referred to in the Oirechtas Report), provides a 'roadmap' for the expansion of this limit to 22 weeks for normal pregnancies and with no gestational limit for cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth i.e. anything from Downs Syndrome to cleft palate, similar to English abortion law.

Note that what is being referred to with a recommendation for no gestational limit abortion is a 'significant foetal abnormality' i.e. special needs children ... and not Fatal Foetal Abnormality i.e children who will die soon after birth.

While the Oireachtas Comittee has rejected some of the more radical suggestions of the Citizens Assembly ... there will be nothing to stop them resurrecting and going ahead with these recommendations, if the 8th is repealed.

Bob_Marley · 08-02-2018 01:35AM

J C wrote: »

... I guess there will be no restrictions.

So in other words up to 12 weeks, you'll be able to terminate the life of any 'undesirable' unborn child for any reason you want, for the crime of perhaps being female instead of male, or having special needs.
A backwards step in the evolution of human society.
No restrictions to the barbaric and medieval termination of the lives of defenseless unborn children up to 12 weeks being dressed up in newspeak as progress.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fetal-sex/blood-test-tells-fetal-sex-in-early-pregnancy-idUSTRE60H4CW20100118

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=8487

Bob_Marley · 08-02-2018 01:40AM

J C wrote: »

Quote from the Oireactas Committee:-
"The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit.
The Committee, while noting the burden placed on the woman and the family in such situations, does not accept that these are sufficient grounds for termination.
The Committee therefore does not accept this recommendation of the Citizens Assembly.
2.35. The Committee recommends that the law should not provide for the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the unborn child has a significant foetal abnormality where such abnormality is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth."

While 12 weeks is the current proposed limit for abortion on demand ... the Citizens Assembly recommendations (that is referred to in the Oirechtas Report), provides a 'roadmap' for the expansion of this limit to 22 weeks for normal pregnancies and with no gestational limit for cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth i.e. anything from Downs Syndrome to cleft palate, similar to English abortion law.

No wonder the question was dodged.

J C · 08-02-2018 01:47AM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

So in other words up to 12 weeks, you'll be able to terminate the life of any 'undesirable' unborn child for any reason you want, for the crime of perhaps being female instead of male, or having special needs.
A backwards step in the evolution of human society.
Pretty barbaric and medieval being dressed up in newspeak as progress.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fetal-sex/blood-test-tells-fetal-sex-in-early-pregnancy-idUSTRE60H4CW20100118

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=8487

Its likely to be a lot worse than that.

Having special needs is likely to be a reason to be aborted with no gestational limit, in line with the recommendation of the Citizen's assembly (and current English abortion law).

Aborting an unborn child for being female, or any other reason (because it's unrestricted abortion) will be allowed up to 12 weeks initially ... but this is likely to be expanded to 22 weeks in line with the Citizens Assembly (and the likely reduction in the English abortion law limit from 24 weeks to 22).

There is something very ironic (and deeply sad) about feminists who campaign for equality for all females ... and then campaign for the right to kill unborn children, including unborn female children. You just couldn't make it up ... and if you did, nobody would believe you !!
Truth is often stranger than fiction.

J C · 08-02-2018 02:40AM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

No wonder the question was dodged.

No wonder indeed.

Timberrrrrrrr · 08-02-2018 07:16AM

J C wrote: »

Its likely to be a lot worse than that.

Having special needs is likely to be a reason to be aborted with no gestational limit, in line with the recommendation of the Citizen's assembly (and current English abortion law).

Aborting an unborn child for being female, or any other reason (because it's unrestricted abortion) will be allowed up to 12 weeks initially ... but this is likely to be expanded to 22 weeks in line with the Citizens Assembly (and the likely reduction in the English abortion law limit from 24 weeks to 22).

There is something very ironic (and deeply sad) about feminists who campaign for equality for all females ... and then campaign for the right to kill unborn children, including unborn female children. You just couldn't make it up ... and if you did, nobody would believe you !!
Truth is often stranger than fiction.

You cannot tell the sex of a foetus at 12 weeks so there you go again telling more lies in a lame attempt to score emotional points.

Peregrinus · 08-02-2018 07:27AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You cannot tell the sex of a foetus at 12 weeks so there you go again telling more lies in a lame attempt to score emotional points.

You can diagnose sex with fetal DNA testing from about seven weeks.

You can diagnose sex through amniocentesis from 8 or 9 weeks. For other reasons, amniocentesis isn't normally done this early, but it certainly can be if a woman requests it.

One of the difficult issues that you have to face, if you support a right to choose, is that a woman might make a choice for a reason that you don't like, such as sex-selective abortion. The logic of a right-to-choose position is that she has a right to make this choice; her reasons for choosing an abortion don't have to pass muster with a man in a cassock, or a man in a white coat, or a pseudonymous poster on a an internet discussion board.

If we find sex-selective abortion troubling, I don't think we can wave away the problem by pretending that such a choice cannot be made in practice; it can.

pilly · 08-02-2018 08:56AM

J C wrote:

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

You can't tell the sex by 12 weeks. You guys really need some biology lessons.

You're looking at cartoons too long.

Delirium · 08-02-2018 09:30AM

J C wrote: »

How about the basic Human right to life of the unborn child?
... and so-called 'full bodily autonomy' is just an obvious immoral 'fig leaf' for an utterly selfish decision to kill an innocent unborn child ... when both the mother and child are perfectly healthy.

Rubbish. There are many valid reasons for an abortion, just because don't agree with abortion doesn't make it "an utterly selfish decision".

'Full bodily autonomy' ends at the point where the exercise of such autonomy interferes with the rights of others ... and especially the right to life of others.

You've just argued the case for legally compelling people to donate blood/organs. Or is it only the unborn that have a right to life?

... otherwise, every rapist would just say, in his defense ... ' I was just exercising my full bodily autonomy, judge' ... and be released to go forth to further exercise the said 'bodily autonomy', as he sees fit !!!

Did you at any point actually read what you just typed? Because show a staggering misunderstanding of bodily autonomy. Explain how someone raping another person 1) is exercising their bodily autonomy and 2) how you see them as not violating the other persons bodily autonomy?

J C wrote: »

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.

You could also apply the same statement to people who don't donate blood/organs. Should I be legally compelled to donate a kidney I'm still using to avoid a 'perversion of equality'? If not, why?

In the 'la la land' of the extreme femininst, 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.

The proposed scenario is for a limit up to 12 weeks. Has anyone argued for abortion on request at 8 or 9 months?

Also, you realise not every pregnancy will be abort as the tone of your (hyperbolic) posts would suggest?

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 from happening ... if the 8th is repealed.

Strange that you're concerned about abortions happening later into pregnancies while defending the current situation that means abortions happen later than if they were available in Ireland. methinks, you're just pulling in extremes to scaremonger.

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 ???

where in the post quoted did the poster say that?

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

That's circular reasoning. The 8th amendment is to protect the unborn from abortion (including some cases of extremis) so of course it would mean abortion infringes on right to life (as laid out in the 8th).

Shoobs86 · 08-02-2018 09:49AM

This article is written by a Christian publication, so it can't really be considered unbiased.

I feel that if maternal mortality rates were low in Ireland then this wouldn't be becoming an issue. However, in my experience, general healthcare for men and women in ireland is extremely poor given the state of our hospitals, and the confusion about the 8th amendment seems to have caused horrific cases of neglect in maternity hospitals nationwide.

Shoobs86 · 08-02-2018 09:53AM

J C wrote: »

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?"

How, can I ask, could you know that a fetus has a cleft palate at 12 weeks, when it does not have a palate? Again, try to leave the emotional, irrational arguements out of this.

The plain basis of this arguement is that some people want the option to have an abortion if they feel that it is right for them, and they do not want to be criminalised by their own country for it. Some people don't want other people to be able to have an abortion without knowing the intimate details of that persons life, and want to have them criminalised for something which is generally up to God to Judge.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments