Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

osarusan · 09-02-2018 01:40PM

The sentence from Item 2.32 actually doesn't make sense to me:

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.

This makes sense to me:

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.

but as it is written, I don't think makes sense. The last 3 words don't belong there. They contradict the mention of a 22-week limit earlier in the same sentence.

Delirium · 09-02-2018 01:43PM

J C wrote: »

I do realise that, and I have never said otherwise ... but they're not just any old recommendations from any old source. The CA was set up by the Government to make recommendations for implementation by government.

That's correct. That's what recommendations are.

The government can strategically water down the recommendations of the CA ... like they have done currently on abortion ... in order to get the 8th repealed 'without frightening the horses' ... and having the people reject the whole thing.

That's right, the government can ignore recommendations they disagree with or they view to be a hard-sell.

... but there will be nothing to stop the government revisiting the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and implementing all of the CA recommendations. In this regard the CA recommendations are practicallly identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to a harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed ... and the CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this.

Equally there will be nothing stopping the government from introducing stricter abortion laws should the laws be revisited.

Shoobs86 · 09-02-2018 03:42PM

J C wrote: »

It also means that there is no gestational limit in cases of foetal abnormality, where the unborn child will go on living after birth i.e non-fatal foetal abnormality.

The reason seems to be that fatal foetal abnormality has no gestational limit proposed by the CA, while normal pregnancies have a 22 week limit proposed ... but this is extended to no gestational limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality as well.
Anyway, this is the clear view of the Oireachtas Committee on what the Citizens Assembly has recommended ... it is not my interpretaion of it.

So I haven't lied ... I have merely correctly quoted what the Oireachtas Committe has said about the Citizens Assembly recomendations.

... and I would ask that the unfounded allegation of lying against me be withdrawn.
Very basic civil behaviour actually.

... and in future, I would suggest that where somebody thinks that another poster has erred the error should be pointed out without resorting to the un-parliamentary ad hominem of accusing the poster of lying.

Again, I am pasting directly from the Oireachtas Committee report:

"The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful without gestational limit in
cases where the unborn child has a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth.

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."

NuMarvel · 09-02-2018 03:59PM

Delirium wrote: »

Equally there will be nothing stopping the government from introducing stricter abortion laws should the laws be revisited.

By JC's logic, there's nothing stopping a government closing all public hospitals, or lowering the age of consent, or increasing income tax to 99%.

But in reality, we know that none of those things are likely to happen, hence the lack of a clamour for constitutional provisions preventing them. And if they were to happen, any public and political backlash that would prompt a U-turn or a change in government. The water charges are the most recent example of this.

Similarly, it's not likely than a future government will significantly alter our abortion laws. But if they did, they would face opposition to it, and if there's sufficient opposition, the proposed changes wouldn't be implemented. Maybe JC's worried there wouldn't be sufficient opposition, but a possible lack of support to a hypothetical and unlikely change isn't sufficient reason to retain a constitutuional provision that isn't fit for purpose.

frag420 · 09-02-2018 04:38PM

J C wrote: »

You are presenting a false 'hobsons choice' whereby you claim we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Generically engineering children is a moral (and physical) abomination. The production of genetically engineered food is banned by law in the EU ... but not genetially engineered Humans, apparently. It all fits into the mindset that gives rights to aniamals that are not granted to unborn Humans.

If somebody is at serious risk of producing a severely disabled child they have several morally legitimate options, including not having children at all or adopting children ... or even adopting somebody else's frozen embryo.
Creating humans with three parents is just the kind of 'frankenstein' meddling that makes people seriously distrust scientists ... and demand that their more outrageous proposals be curbed.

I am not presenting anything, just asking your thoughts on something!

So with respect to the part in bold above, are you saying that that child should not have equal standing in the eyes of the law as a child that was conceived the natural way?

As for not having children, are we not meant to try to procreate, is that not why we have sex in the eyes of the Christian church? Are you happy with someone adopting someone else's embryo and having it artificially inseminated to produce a child?

As for the second part in bold, do you trust scientists to come up with cures for diseases and create medicines? Do you only distrust them when it goes against your religious views and beliefs even if it is for the betterment of mankind (eradication of deadly diseases)

end of the road · 09-02-2018 05:44PM

smacl wrote: »

I'm not troubled at all, quite the reverse actually. That people are responsible enough to only have children when they want to have children is a great piece of social progress that has happened in recent decades. I think abortion should be minimised on the basis that it is traumatic for the woman involved and should only be necessary in exceptional cases. No one ever wants an abortion, but nor should a woman ever have to bear a child against her will for whatever reason she chooses.

nobody is being forced to bear children, they just aren't allowed to kill the unborn within the state.

smacl wrote: »

You do realise we live in a world where in excess of 3 million children die of starvation each year and if existing population trends continue, it is probable we will face a larger global food crisis?

oh dear. resorting to starving children and a possible food crisis as an argument to justify the killing of the unborn on demand. come on now. this is ridiculous. you can't seriously think anyone would listen to this nonsense? you're looking for problems to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it isn't the solution.

smacl wrote: »

The decision to only have children that you want and can reasonably hope to look after properly is entirely virtuous in my opinion and should be applauded.

not when it involves the killing of the unborn.

smacl wrote: »

Abortion is already tough enough for the women involved, stigmatising it and putting up barriers against it is in my opinion shameful.

if one has an abortion outside medically necessary circumstances, they have to except there is going to be a consiquence to that, people openly disagreeing with their decisian. we stigmatize and try to put up barriers against the taking of life already via the laws in our country, and the unborn are included in that, unless it is absolutely medically necessary, for which one should be exempt from criticism.

Delirium wrote: »

And the committee has rejected the recommendation of the 22-week limit for on request and the no limits on foetal abnormalities where the unborn will go on living after birth.

What is the relevance of these rejected recommendations with regard to the proposed 12 week limit on request?

the relevance is that there is nothing stopping the "rejected" recommendations from being resurrected and implamented if the 8th is repealed.

smacl · 09-02-2018 06:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is being forced to bear children, they just aren't allowed to kill the unborn within the state.

By that definition, given pregnant women are people, you're ok for abortions to happen outside the state. Pretty much defines NIMBYism.

oh dear. resorting to starving children and a possible food crisis as an argument to justify the killing of the unborn on demand. come on now. this is ridiculous. you can't seriously think anyone would listen to this nonsense? you're looking for problems to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it isn't the solution.

Nope, I'm suggesting family planning makes more sense in today's world than attempting to live by a set of religious edicts formulated for a time when life expectancy was low, child mortality was high, and the total world population was of the order of 3 million people. Simple truth is we don't need more people on this planet, we need fewer. People should have children when and if they want them in this day and age, not through happenstance.

if one has an abortion outside medically necessary circumstances, they have to except there is going to be a consiquence to that, people openly disagreeing with their decisian. we stigmatize and try to put up barriers against the taking of life already via the laws in our country, and the unborn are included in that, unless it is absolutely medically necessary, for which one should be exempt from criticism.

Only when bigots decide to act the bully when they realise that other people don't live their lives according to the same ultra-conservative dogma. Luckily the days where this type of nonsense is socially acceptable are becoming fewer.

end of the road · 09-02-2018 06:56PM

smacl wrote: »

By that definition, given pregnant women are people, you're ok for abortions to happen outside the state. Pretty much defines NIMBYism.

i'm not okay with it, but the reality is we cannot stop people who want abortions from traveling outside the state without effecting other people. other people should not be effected.

smacl wrote: »

Simple truth is we don't need more people on this planet, we need fewer.

simple truth is we do not get to decide how many people should live on this earth, and we do not get to kill others in the name of population control. you are finding a potential problem for which to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it is not the solution and never will be.

smacl wrote: »

People should have children when and if they want them in this day and age, not through happenstance.

agreed, but they should not get to kill the unborn in the name of that.

smacl wrote: »

Only when bigots decide to act the bully when they realise that other people don't live their lives according to the same ultra-conservative dogma. Luckily the days where this type of nonsense is socially acceptable are becoming fewer.

not at all. people being condemned for taking human life is a fact of life and society. whether it be the killing of the unborn,, new born or even adults. nothing bigoted about it. i certainly don't live by ultra-conservative dogma, far from it, i'm the complete opposite to a conservative. however if it's not okay to take a life once it's born, and it's okay to condemn those who take that life, it's not okay to take that life before it's born unless it's for medically necessary reasons, and it's okay to condemn those who kill the unborn outside medically necessary reasons.

smacl · 09-02-2018 07:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not okay with it, but the reality is we cannot stop people who want abortions from traveling outside the state without effecting other people. other people should not be effected.

If we can't stop it, why force women to travel abroad to avail of it or use dangerous abortifacients to do it in an unsupervised environment while risking their own health. It seems like you're willing to jeopardise their lives to protect your moral values. I fully accept that your opinion is that a foetus in the womb constitutes a human life or even a person, but do you agree that other people do not share that opinion? If so, why exactly are you right and they wrong?

simple truth is we do not get to decide how many people should live on this earth, and we do not get to kill others in the name of population control. you are finding a potential problem for which to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it is not the solution and never will be.

If you agree that we should procreate by choice, of course we have ultimate control of the size of our population. The alternative is looking to global warfare or large scale epidemics to control the size of our population. Tough choices, but necessary ones. As I've said before in numerous occasions on this thread, abortion should always be exceptional. I know a few women who've been through it, and it is more than traumatic enough without any additional finger wagging from puritans who for the most part will never have to face it.

not at all. people being condemned for taking human life is a fact of life and society. whether it be the killing of the unborn,, new born or even adults. nothing bigoted about it. i certainly don't live by ultra-conservative dogma, far from it, i'm the complete opposite to a conservative. however if it's not okay to take a life once it's born, and it's okay to condemn those who take that life, it's not okay to take that life before it's born unless it's for medically necessary reasons, and it's okay to condemn those who kill the unborn outside medically necessary reasons.

Nope, condemning others for making hard decisions that you'll never have to make is entirely bigoted and rather miserable. For those that claim to care about life there are so many living out there that need and would dearly love some of that care it is shocking. Forcing women to have babies that they don't want will only add to that cohort.

end of the road · 09-02-2018 07:51PM

smacl wrote: »

If we can't stop it, why force women to travel abroad to avail of it or use dangerous abortifacients to do it in an unsupervised environment while risking their own health. It seems like you're willing to jeopardise their lives to protect your moral values.

non-medical abortions are not required in ireland, and there are plenty of treatments people travel abroad for. by having them travel abroad and the expence involved may make some think twice in doing it. medical abortion is necessary and should be provided in ireland but the current proposals are not optimal in insuring that only such abortions happen if the 8th is repealed.

smacl wrote: »

I fully accept that your opinion is that a foetus in the womb constitutes a human life or even a person, but do you agree that other people do not share that opinion? If so, why exactly are you right and they wrong?

some people believe infanticide is okay. some people believe murder is okay. some people believe a lot of things are okay. what makes them wrong and those of us who disagree with them right?
the reason why i am right and those who agree with abortion on demand are wrong, is that a fetus is a human being which will develop into a person, and we accept that killing another human being is wrong and we don't allow it in our society. i am right because if it's not okay to kill a human being once born, then it's not okay to kill that human being before it is born, unless medical necessity requires it, such as the mother's life needing to be saved.

smacl wrote: »

If you agree that we should procreate by choice, of course we have ultimate control of the size of our population. The alternative is looking to global warfare or large scale epidemics to control the size of our population. Tough choices, but necessary ones.

not tough choices and not necessary ones as we don't get to control the population of plannet earth. again you are looking for a problem for which to have abortion on demand as the solution, when it isn't a solution and never will be.

smacl wrote: »

As I've said before in numerous occasions on this thread, abortion should always be exceptional. I know a few women who've been through it, and it is more than traumatic enough without any additional finger wagging from puritans who for the most part will never have to face it.

if they are going to kill the unborn, they have to understand that "finger wagging" is the consiquence of it. it's not something i would engage in personally on an individual basis, just like i personally wouldn't do it to any individual no matter how abhorrent their deeds. but on a general basis i will condemn actions that harm others.

smacl wrote: »

Nope, condemning others for making hard decisions that you'll never have to make is entirely bigoted and rather miserable. For those that claim to care about life there are so many living out there that need and would dearly love some of that care it is shocking. Forcing women to have babies that they don't want will only add to that cohort.

nope, condemning those who kill the unborn for non-necessary and non-essential reasons is not bigoted. if the same people killed their newborn they would be condemned and it would be seen as perfectly okay, and would not be classed as bigotry. nobody is being forced to have a baby they don't want, they are being told they cannot kill the unborn outside medical reasons.

recedite · 09-02-2018 08:19PM

smacl wrote: »

You do realise we live in a world where in excess of 3 million children die of starvation each year and if existing population trends continue, it is probable we will face a larger global food crisis?

Not in this country.
In fact, the problem in nearly all western developed countries is negative birth rates and aging populations, with a predicted pensions time bomb problem. Unless of course, we decide to import the population replacements instead of reproducing ourselves. Eventually we can become an idiocracy.

osarusan wrote: »

The sentence from Item 2.32 actually doesn't make sense to me:
This makes sense to me:

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.

but as it is written, I don't think makes sense. The last 3 words don't belong there. They contradict the mention of a 22-week limit earlier in the same sentence.

I agree, it is nonsense. Its probably a mistake in the text.
Just goes to show what a pi$$ poor report it is.

Bob_Marley · 09-02-2018 10:34PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

All counties were represented. Demographics by age, gender and social class were represented. Other demographics were represented only coincidentally. The representation was not "democratic".

This is completely untrue. Only 16 of the 26 counties are represented.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Who else has the expertise and experience in selecting representative samples of the population, if not polling companies? The particular polling company which got the gig was chosen through a public tender process. It's not true to say that they did the job "without any oversight"; they were overseen by Ms. Justice Laffoy.

You might be completely comfortable with a such an important yet completely unelected undemocrtatic body, being chosen by a private and ltd. marketing company, to allegedly fairly represent the citizens of Ireland in making 18 extremely important recommendations for constitutional amendments, and 20 for other changes to laws or Oireachtas standing order, many of which have already been accepted, or are under consideration by the government. - but more fool you.

J C · 09-02-2018 11:02PM

Delirium wrote: »

That's correct. That's what recommendations are.

Agreed.

Delirium wrote: »

That's right, the government can ignore recommendations they disagree with or they view to be a hard-sell.

Agreed ... and that's what they have done with some of the CA recommendations on abortion ... to get the 8th repealed with as little resistance as possible.

Delirium wrote: »

Equally there will be nothing stopping the government from introducing stricter abortion laws should the laws be revisited.

... but that is not how it will play out if the 8th is repealed.

It is as certain as night follows day that the government will revisit the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and they will implement all of the CA recommendations.
The reason for this is that the CA recommendations are practically identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed. Otherwise women will still have to go to England for abortions outside 12 weeks ... and that will become politically impossible to resist if the 8th is repealed.
The question will be asked as to why women still have to go to England for abortions after the 8th has been repealed ... and the answer will very quickly be the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English law.
The CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this.
... and you would need to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise, if the 8th is repealed.
... whichever side of the abortion issue, you stand on.

smacl · 09-02-2018 11:18PM

recedite wrote: »

Not in this country.
In fact, the problem in nearly all western developed countries is negative birth rates and aging populations, with a predicted pensions time bomb problem. Unless of course, we decide to import the population replacements instead of reproducing ourselves. Eventually we can become an idiocracy

Not in our back yard? Do you honestly believe the solution to an increasingly large ageing population is to create a larger still younger population to support them? Pray tell what happens when that younger population when they grow older and where this sequence endds?

J C · 09-02-2018 11:27PM

recedite wrote: »

I agree, it is nonsense. Its probably a mistake in the text.
Just goes to show what a pi$$ poor report it is.

I have checked the CA report and you are correct ... it is a mistake in the text of Oireachtas Report of the CA Report ...

The CA voted 69% for no gestational age limit for fatal foetal abnormality ... while only 38% voted for no gestational age limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality.

However, English abortion law doesn't differentiate between fatal and non-fatal foetal abnormality ... abortion for both reasons may be carried out without gestational limit.
So an Irish woman seeking a late term abortion for non-fatal foetal abnormality has to travel to England for such an abortion, unless Irish law is harmonised with English law on this issue.

We need to remember that Irish abortion law will have to be identical to English law, so that Irish women don't need to travel to England for any type of abortion ... because this is the main reason being cited for the repeal of the 8th, in the first place.

david75 · 09-02-2018 11:45PM

Does a single pro lifer in this thread really believe waffling and misleading and browbeating people helps their cause?
Would your energy not be better spent knocking on doors and taking part in the campaign?

With your easily accessible and not at all condescending and insulting style you would surely bring many voters to your side.

Ps

Is the constant bolding of texts really nauseating to anyone else?
We can read. Are you that dismissive that you have to consistently presume to talk down to people in bullet points in order to make your point?

J C · 09-02-2018 11:56PM

frag420 wrote: »

I am not presenting anything, just asking your thoughts on something!

So with respect to the part in bold above, are you saying that that child should not have equal standing in the eyes of the law as a child that was conceived the natural way?

As for not having children, are we not meant to try to procreate, is that not why we have sex in the eyes of the Christian church? Are you happy with someone adopting someone else's embryo and having it artificially inseminated to produce a child?

There is no moral requirement on anybody to reproduce.
... and if somebody's reproduction capacity is so compromised that ethically reprehensible means are required to allow them to reproduce, then such means cannot be ethically used.
Indeed in the case cited the person is only partially reproducing anyway, because a third parties DNA is also being used in the mix to produce the child.
It is basically 'designer babies' by the back door.
If they want to become pregnant and carry a child to term, they could ethically adopt a frozen surplus embryo, belonging to somebody else, thereby helping resolve the ethical dilemma as to what to do with frozen surplus Human embryos.

frag420 wrote: »

As for the second part in bold, do you trust scientists to come up with cures for diseases and create medicines? Do you only distrust them when it goes against your religious views and beliefs even if it is for the betterment of mankind (eradication of deadly diseases)

I trust them in so far as they use ethical means to produce such cures ... creating children with three parents isn't an ethical means to resolve genetic disease risk.
... and is a waste of resources that could be better used to save lives elsewhere in the Health service.

Delirium · 10-02-2018 12:19AM

J C wrote: »

... but that is not how it will play out if the 8th is repealed.

Didn't realise you were clairvoyant.

It is as certain as night follows day that the government will revisit the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and they will implement all of the CA recommendations.
The reason for this is that the CA recommendations are practically identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed. Otherwise women will still have to go to England for abortions outside 12 weeks ... and that will become politically impossible to resist if the 8th is repealed.
The question will be asked as to why women still have to go to England for abortions after the 8th has been repealed ... and the answer will very quickly be the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English law.
The CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this.
... and you would need to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise, if the 8th is repealed.
... whichever side of the abortion issue, you stand on.

It's strange that you don't believe that society shares your pro-life perspective, i.e. you have little to no confidence that Ireland would stay with the 12week limit or possibly become more restrictive at some point.

Surely if you have the courage of your convictions, you would believe somewhat that it's a matter of time before more people move to a pro-life position? Do you not believe that pro-life arguments can convince people?

Bob_Marley · 10-02-2018 12:26AM

Delirium wrote: »

Surely if you have the courage of your convictions, you would believe somewhat that it's a matter of time before more people move to a pro-life position? Do you not believe that pro-life arguments can convince people?

Personally, as I'm an optimist for humanity, I've no doubt that as human society continues to evolve the majority of society will eventually recognise the killing of defenseless human life of unborn children for what it is - crude, barbaric, unnecessary, and medieval.

Timberrrrrrrr · 10-02-2018 12:38AM

J C wrote: »

I have checked the CA report and you are correct ... it is a mistake in the text of Oireachtas Report of the CA Report ...

The CA voted 69% for no gestational age limit for fatal foetal abnormality ... while only 38% voted for no gestational age limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality.

However, English abortion law doesn't differentiate between fatal and non-fatal foetal abnormality ... abortion for both reasons may be carried out without gestational limit.
So an Irish woman seeking a late term abortion for non-fatal foetal abnormality has to travel to England for such an abortion, unless Irish law is harmonised with English law on this issue.

We need to remember that Irish abortion law will have to be identical to English law, so that Irish women don't need to travel to England for any type of abortion ... because this is the main reason being cited for the repeal of the 8th, in the first place.

Sorry? Do you have evidence for this ludicrous claim or is it just you spouting nonsense yet again?

end of the road · 10-02-2018 12:50AM

david75 wrote: »

Ps

Is the constant bolding of texts really nauseating to anyone else?
We can read. Are you that dismissive that you have to consistently presume to talk down to people in bullet points in order to make your point?

sometimes it's necessary depending on when and where it is used. i think where it has been used is a good use of it myself. makes one really pay attention to the information been given.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sorry? Do you have evidence for this ludicrous claim or is it just you spouting nonsense yet again?

unfortunately he is likely correct. ireland's possible abortion laws would have to be completely harmonised with britain. otherwise there will be screaming and screaming until it happens.

Bob_Marley · 10-02-2018 01:46AM

david75 wrote: »

Does a single pro lifer in this thread really believe waffling and misleading and browbeating people helps their cause?
Would your energy not be better spent knocking on doors and taking part in the campaign?

With your easily accessible and not at all condescending and insulting style you would surely bring many voters to your side.

It would be good if you could help raise the quality, content and tone of the pro abortion posts and start addressing the actual points and queries raised instead of resorting to attacking posters ?

recedite · 10-02-2018 09:16AM

smacl wrote: »

Not in our back yard? Do you honestly believe the solution to an increasingly large ageing population is to create a larger still younger population to support them? Pray tell what happens when that younger population when they grow older and where this sequence endds?

Not sure what your point is here. Young people become old people and eventually they die. Ideally a society would have a stable population, ie as many being born every year as are dying.

You introduced this red herring into the debate that having children was somehow irresponsible. Claiming the dangers of famine or some such nonsense. I pointed out that the real problem for Ireland, as in most developed countries, is that too many people are opting out from having children. Having a negative birth rate poses a real problem for the future of any society.

Here in Ireland we may not be very far behind Italy..

“We are very close to the threshold of non-renewal where the people dying are not replaced by new-borns. That means we are a dying country,” Health Minister Beatrice Lorenzin said.

“This situation has enormous implications for every sector: the economy, society, health, pensions, just to give a few examples,” Lorenzin said.

“We need a wake-up call and a real change of culture to turn the trend around in the coming years,” added the minister.
Developed countries the world over are counting the costs of an ageing population, such as rising pension payouts and healthcare costs, but Italy, mired in its third recession in six years, is particularly vulnerable.

They are now paying out a baby bonus in a bid to stem the decline.

smacl · 10-02-2018 11:33AM

recedite wrote: »

Not sure what your point is here. Young people become old people and eventually they die. Ideally a society would have a stable population, ie as many being born every year as are dying.

You introduced this red herring into the debate that having children was somehow irresponsible. Claiming the dangers of famine or some such nonsense. I pointed out that the real problem for Ireland, as in most developed countries, is that too many people are opting out from having children. Having a negative birth rate poses a real problem for the future of any society.

Here in Ireland we may not be very far behind Italy..
They are now paying out a baby bonus in a bid to stem the decline.

Could you point out where I said the section highlighted, not seeing it? That Italy has a declining population and an immigration crisis doesn't suggest a shortage of people to me so much as a failure to integrate. While negative birthrates can cause certain problems, positive birthrates are obviously unsustainable. Remember that the Christian message isn't go forth and form a stable population. The word is multiply, increase your numbers generation upon generation.

Coming back to abortion, do you seriously believe that forcing women to have unwanted children will be of net benefit to our society? That we should force woman to have more children because we're running out of kids? Seriously? In case you haven't noticed, we have a homeless crisis in this country. As a society we're already failing to look after very many young people. The sad truth is that this is the scenario that those who are unwanted find themselves in.

recedite · 10-02-2018 12:28PM

smacl wrote: »

Could you point out where I said the section highlighted, not seeing it? That Italy has a declining population and an immigration crisis doesn't suggest a shortage of people to me so much as a failure to integrate.

Certainly.....

smacl wrote: »

The whole Christian idea of 'go forth and multiply' is finally being reined in as the dangerous anachronistic ideal that it is when applied to a modern context. You do realise we live in a world where in excess of 3 million children die of starvation each year and if existing population trends continue, it is probable we will face a larger global food crisis?

Europe and the traditional christian countries are in no danger of starvation or over-reproduction. There are other regions in the world, many of them islamic, and often referred to as third world countries, where they "go forth and multiply" way beyond the resources of those countries.

Your idea that the Irish (and all Europeans) should abort their own children and then open their borders so that they can accommodate these third world populations is unsustainable. In the end, Europe would become the third world. That is not integration, its colonisation.

Your philosophy seems to be in line with George Soros, man of the dodgy donations.

smacl wrote: »

Coming back to abortion, do you seriously believe that forcing women to have unwanted children will be of net benefit to our society? That we should force woman to have more children because we're running out of kids? Seriously? In case you haven't noticed, we have a homeless crisis in this country.

You're a great fella for conflating different issues. The people who sleep on the streets do so mainly because they have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. That's a completely different issue to population stability. We have overpriced housing and rents. That's yet another issue.

We also have Irish couples scouring the world looking for babies to adopt; surely that is more relevant? Nobody is forcing women to become pregnant, except maybe rapists, and no I do not condone that. If I was in charge, I'd have them forcibly castrated.

smacl · 10-02-2018 01:21PM

recedite wrote: »

Europe and the traditional christian countries are in no danger of starvation or over-reproduction. There are other regions in the world, many of them islamic, and often referred to as third world countries, where they "go forth and multiply" way beyond the resources of those countries.

Rather more Christians out there in the third world than the first, Rec, have a look at the map sometime. Those missionaries spreading the good word with their 'go forth and multiply' and strong stance against family planning have had a bit of impact.

Your idea that the Irish (and all Europeans) should abort their own children and then open their borders so that they can accommodate these third world populations is unsustainable. In the end, Europe would become the third world. That is not integration, its colonisation.

Colonisation, like the Irish in America, that kind of thing? Or more the Spanish, British, Italians, or Portuguese perhaps? Ok to colonise other countries but build a wall if anyone tries coming back the other way. And if you read my posts you'll note that I've stated that abortion should be an exceptional event and am not advocating as a routine method of birth control. Nor is anyone for that matter, how ever much the pro-life brigade would like to see it.

Your philosophy seems to be in line with George Soros, man of the dodgy donations.

Good old George Soros, the favourite hate figure for the far right. You're keeping some interesting company with that dig.

You're a great fella for conflating different issues. The people who sleep on the streets do so mainly because they have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. That's a completely different issue to population stability. We have overpriced housing and rents. That's yet another issue.

And which social stratum exactly do you think unwanted babies will find themselves growing up in, if not the most disadvantaged?

We also have Irish couples scouring the world looking for babies to adopt; surely that is more relevant? Nobody is forcing women to become pregnant, except maybe rapists, and no I do not condone that. If I was in charge, I'd have them forcibly castrated.

Nice, a ball for a ball so to speak. Maybe you've got more in common with the Muslims than you're letting on

recedite · 10-02-2018 01:41PM

smacl wrote: »

Nice, a ball for a ball so to speak. Maybe you've got more in common with the Muslims than you're letting on

Maybe being so pro-choice you take a more lenient view of rapists? Let them do whatever they want with their own bodies? Sure we can always abort the rapist's children before they are born.

recedite · 10-02-2018 01:43PM

smacl wrote: »

And which social stratum exactly do you think unwanted babies will find themselves growing up in, if not the most disadvantaged?

Adopted children rarely if ever complain that their upbringing was a disadvantage to them.

Bob_Marley · 10-02-2018 01:46PM

recedite wrote: »

Adopted children rarely if ever complain that their upbringing was a disadvantage to them.

I've yet to hear one claim they should have been killed as an unborn child instead.

Delirium · 10-02-2018 01:57PM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

I've yet to hear one claim they should have killed as an unborn child instead.

Pretty difficult without a Tardis tbh.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments