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

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Do certain people have a monopoly on suffering ie. Savita? What about the rest of us?

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Savita's story is indeed sad...
Subsequent legislation has, we are told, ensured that this should not happen again. So, while Savita's death was needless and tragic, it hardly constitutes a reason to repeal the 8th.

Subsequent legislation conforms to the 8th amendment, therefore we cannot say things have changed since. Clarified maybe. I couldn't imagine hospital staff saying to somebody now that a patient can't have an abortion because "this is a catholic country".
However it must be pointed out, that should not have been the case when Savita was alive either, it was just ignorance.

Also the fact that the husband won a medical negligence case shows that the hospital was unable to hide behind the law. If the law had prevented staff from acting, the husband would not have been able to sue for medical negligence.

Another aspect which was never really looked into was the question of why standard antibiotics failed to work. We know that people from different parts of the world have different bacteria inside them, partly related to the particular environment they originate from, which is why you are more likely to get a tummy bug on holidays. We also know that in asia farm animals are routinely fed on antibiotics which leads to drug resistant bacteria in the environment. Put two and two together, and it follows that an Asian women with sepsis would need closer monitoring when given the kind of antibiotics that would "normally" work.
So there are a lot of areas in which that hospital failed in their duty of care, leading to them being sued (quite rightly)

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

How is a hospital to know all this? At which country would it begin its investigations? How many years would such investigations take? What do you mean by Asia? Would such investigations stop at some Asian border, or extend into neighbouring countries, just to be sure?

ABC101

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you and Whiteroses are continuing to peddle misinformation about the number of deaths of women caused by the 8th Amendment.

You have been asked to give a number of the "countless" you refer to and have failed abysmally to provide any link, or evidence from any reputable source.

As Nick Park has pointed out your arguments are without foundation and having been called out on it you continue to dig a deeper and bigger hole for yourselves.

Have you no shame?

ABC101

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Who made you the judge?

ABC101

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Shock horror.... this is the Christianity forum you are posting in.

Do you realise that???

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Her husband feels that the 8th implicated her maternity care.

that's his opinion. however it's not fact given the 8th was introduced after Sheila Hodgers died. so therefore the 8th was not responsible in any way for her death.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The doctors refused her treatment due to concerns it would hurt the baby.

that could have been standard policy at the time.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

That is exactly what the 8th was brought in for - it may not have been in law yet but it was certainly in practice. What’s that saying, if it walks like and duck and talks like a duck???....

for it to be in practice it would have had to have been introduced. it was not introduced when Sheila Hodgers died and the final wording wasn't even known at the time Sheila Hodgers died.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don’t care if you dismiss what I’m saying because even if the 8th didn’t directly cause their deaths, it was certainly linked to them.

potentially linked doesn't equal causation. the reality is that one of the women you mentioned (miss hodgers) died before the 8th was introduced. the second (savita) died due to mismanagement of sepsis and other failures. the third (miss Malek) died due to mismanagement of her operation. 3 very sad and needless deaths.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I fail to see how you don’t see the connection between Maleks death and the 8th when even her husband has stated he feels it had impact on her care and subsequent death, but if you disagree, that’s your own business.

he may feel the 8th played a part in her care, but it doesn't make it fact that it did. maybe it did do so, but her husband feeling it did doesn't mean that it did.

SusieBlue

ABC101 wrote: »

So you and Whiteroses are continuing to peddle misinformation about the number of deaths of women caused by the 8th Amendment.

You have been asked to give a number of the "countless" you refer to and have failed abysmally to provide any link, or evidence from any reputable source.

As Nick Park has pointed out your arguments are without foundation and having been called out on it you continue to dig a deeper and bigger hole for yourselves.

Have you no shame?

So you are saying no woman has ever died because of the 8th amendment? None? Ever? No woman had ever recevieced substandard medical care because of it?

I said countless because I don’t know how many. There is no data to prove either way.
Whether you choose to believe it or not we have 3 cases where the 8th was linked or responsible for the death of a woman.
We have two cases (Miss P and Miss X) where maternity care was compromised because of the 8th.

Even if we just look at these 5 cases in isolation it’s 5 cases too many. I would not be happy to receive the care those women had, nor would I be happy for any other woman to.

You seem to be absolutely determined to downplay any negativity regarding how the 8th affects pregnancy care and how it has been a factor in the death of women.

Bob_Marley

ABC101 wrote: »

So you and Whiteroses are continuing to peddle misinformation about the number of deaths of women caused by the 8th Amendment.

You have been asked to give a number of the "countless" you refer to and have failed abysmally to provide any link, or evidence from any reputable source.

As Nick Park has pointed out your arguments are without foundation and having been called out on it you continue to dig a deeper and bigger hole for yourselves.

Have you no shame?

Didn't you know 3 people since the 80's is apparently countless, even when it turns out they didn't.
No need to provide any factual statistics at all. Just keep posting . . it's countless . .

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Didn't you know 3 people since the 80's is apparently countless, even if they didn't.

Doubt you’d be so blasé about it if it was one of your female relatives affected by it, or better still, you yourself.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Doubt you’d be so blasé about it if it was one of your female relatives affected by it, or better still, you yourself.

Your new found concern for human life is not very convincing.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Your new found concern for human life is not very convincing.

Well, that’s completely inaccurate.
I’ve always cared about humans that are actually alive and living and here, my posts reflect that.

uck51js9zml2yt

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is exactly what it means!!!

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Ok, so we're all on the same page on bodily autonomy.

Yes, like all rights, it only extends to where it starts to impinge other people's bodily autonomy.

Delirium wrote: »

Do you believe a person should be able to make informed medical decisions about their body?

Absolutely ... but again making informed medical decisions doesn't mean that we can decide to harm ourselves or others.

SusieBlue

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

This is exactly what it means!!!

No one is suggesting euthanasing newborns.

uck51js9zml2yt

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No one is suggesting euthanasing newborns.

i highlighted the wrong part of his post...should have been the first line:D

Buts he's equally happy with 16 weeks.

Whats stopping our politicans at some future date making it 20 weeks or 24 ...or 28.....you get the picture!

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

We cannot ever know the real number of women who lost their lives because the data isn't recorded properly. I provided 3 names to you, that's 3 too many.

The living, breathing, sentient women who carried those 3.5k fetuses are more important and their rights and needs and wants should be upheld. I think we need to look after the citizens we actually do have without worrying about the potential ones.

I think that we would know very rapidly if any woman died because she couldn't access an abortion.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Yes, like all rights, it only extends to where it starts to impinge other people's bodily autonomy.

Absolutely ... but again making informed medical decisions doesn't mean that we can decide to harm ourselves or others.

Not entirely correct. A patient can refuse to go with a recommended treatment even with a risk to their life.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Not entirely correct. A patient can refuse to go with a recommended treatment even with a risk to their life.

They can ... but if the risk to your life is great ... then doctors can over-ride refusal by going to the courts.

https://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/health/jehovahs-witness-forced-to-have-lifesaving-transfusion-26366172.html

J C

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

i highlighted the wrong part of his post...should have been the first line:D

Buts he's equally happy with 16 weeks.

Whats stopping our politicans at some future date making it 20 weeks or 24 ...or 28.....you get the picture!

The CA recommended 22 weeks ... and in England it is 24 weeks, with no time limit for some cases, incuding disabled unborn children.

If the 8th is repealed, we will have writtten a 'blank cheque' ... anything may happen.

J C

ABC101 wrote: »

If abortion was a painless procedure then at least there would be some consolation. However it is not, in many cases is a horrible death on a defenceless, completely innocent human being / baby which has committed no wrong.

But there is hope with modern science / imaging software / HD micro cameras etc which will show future generations that abortion is the greatest holocaust of all humanity ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/astagnaro/abortionist-quits-after-st.-thomas-aquinas-visits-him-in-a-dream

Some interesting background to the Silent Scream film.

Firstly, the author of the film was Dr Bernard N. Nathanson, who was a former abortionist who was responsible for the killing of 75,000 unborn children in one of the biggest abortion facilities in the world ... and whose conscience got the better of him ... and he then became one of the leading pro-life advocates in America.

Quote:-
"Bernard N. Nathanson (July 31, 1926 – February 21, 2011) was an American medical doctor and co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws — NARAL — later renamed National Abortion Rights Action League. He was also the former director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, but later became a pro-life activist. He was the narrator for the controversial 1984 anti-abortion film The Silent Scream."

The Silent Scream conclusivley showed that abortions caused severe pain to the unborn children being killed.
Up to then, no anaesthetic was administered to the unborn child prior to abortion, on the basis that the foetus wasn't supposed to be sentient .... and the anaesthetic could cause medical complications for the mother by entering her bloodstream via the placenta.
The Silent Scream film put the sentience of the foetus beyond doubt ... and, despite initial denial and resistence from abortionists, it is now slowly becoming routine to anaesthesise the unborn child, during later abortions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/1368035/Babies-may-feel-pain-of-abortion.html
Quote:-
"Prof Vivette Glover, of London, is calling for all terminations between 17 and 24 weeks to be performed under anaesthetic. Although 90 per cent of terminations take place before 13 weeks, when most medical opinion agrees that a foetus cannot feel pain, concern has resurfaced about those carried out during the next 11 weeks. At present, some abortions during the period of 13 to 24 weeks are carried out without anaesthesia."

Controversy still surrounds exacltly when or if anaesthesia should be used and there is no law requiring it in the UK ... but unborn animals are protected by a requirement to anaethesise them before aborting them.
Quote:-
"The Women and Children's Welfare Fund charity says that the foetus is less well protected from pain in Britain than animals. There was no legislation to protect the foetus, it said. But the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act of 1986 for "pre-born vertebrate animals" such as rats, guinea pigs and hedgehogs, ensured that they were not subjected to undue suffering."

Here is the story of Dr Nathanson ... as recorded in his obituary.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-former-abortionist-top-pro-life-advocate-bernard-nathanson-dies-at
Quote:-
"At one time Nathanson was deeply entrenched in the American pro-abortion movement, having co-founded the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and overseen 75,000 abortions as director of an abortion clinic.

Nathanson’s high-profile conversion to the pro-life movement was sparked by the advent of the ultrasound machine in the early 1970s. He has related how he was moved to acknowledge the humanity of the unborn child after he watched an unborn baby recoil from a vacuum abortion device before being sucked from its mother’s womb."

It goes to show that nobody is beyond redemption ... if one of the world's most prolific abortionists ... can repent and become one of America's leading pro-life advocates ... anything is possible.

Here is his deathbed testament:-

Quote:-
"For more than a decade after he became pro-life, Nathanson described himself as a Jewish atheist, but in December of 1996 he was baptized a Catholic by Cardinal John O'Connor in a private Mass with a group of friends in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral. He also received confirmation and first Communion from the cardinal.

About his baptism, he said, "I was in a real whirlpool of emotion, and then there was this healing, cooling water on me, and soft voices, and an inexpressible sense of peace. I had found a safe place."

He had found a safe place ... a quite ironic (but apparently genuine) statement from a man with the blood of 75,000 unborn children on his hands ... children who didn't have a safe place ... in their mother's womb!!!

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No one is suggesting euthanasing newborns.

Really???

Euthanasia of newborns is allowed by law in Holland ... which is a fellow EU member country.
https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-newborn-infants

... and Belgium has become the first country to legalise euthanasia for children of any age.

... and according to the New Scientist "Other countries need to face the issue too."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580-200-the-world-needs-to-talk-about-child-euthanasia/

... so, I guess the culture of death is almost complete ... and the only thing standing in its way in Ireland ... is the 8th.

Here is the matter of fact way, the killing an infant child is described ...
Quote:-
"EUTHANISING an infant is not technically difficult. Intravenous sedatives are used to silence the brain, followed by a pain medication such as morphine. This is often enough to trigger respiratory arrest and death, but if not, neuromuscular blockers are added, and the child dies. The process takes 5 to 10 minutes."

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Really???

Euthanasia of newborns is allowed by law in Holland ... which is a fellow EU member country.
https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-newborn-infants

... and Belgium has become the first country to legalise euthanasia for children of any age.

... and according to the New Scientist "Other countries need to face the issue too."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129580-200-the-world-needs-to-talk-about-child-euthanasia/

... so, I guess the culture of death is almost complete ... and the only thing standing in its way in Ireland ... is the 8th.

Here is the matter of fact way killing an infant child is described ...
Quote:-
"EUTHANISING an infant is not technically difficult. Intravenous sedatives are used to silence the brain, followed by a pain medication such as morphine. This is often enough to trigger respiratory arrest and death, but if not, neuromuscular blockers are added, and the child dies. The process takes 5 to 10 minutes.

“This is strange to say, but it happens in a peaceful manner,” says Eduard Verhagen, who is head of the Department of Pediatrics at the University Medical Centre in Groningen, the Netherlands, and also a lawyer.

What a load of absolute nonsense.
Your entire post is irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with the current referendum here in Ireland.
I haven’t seen one single person in real life or online campaigning for the euthanisation of newborns in Ireland.
If you have, please direct me to same because I’d be very interested to see it.
More deflection and scaremongering.

Nick Park

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No one is suggesting euthanasing newborns.

Actually, anyone who advocates that we adopt UK-style abortion legislation (which, apparently, is necessary to stop Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions) is suggesting euthanising newborns.

An official report funded by the UK's Health Service revealed that babies are born alive after abortions and then left to die.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2016/11/perinatalmortality2005.pdf

Check out this little gem on page 28:

Sixty-six of the 2235 neonatal deaths notified in England and Wales followed legal termination (predominantly on account of congenital anomalies) of the pregnancy i.e. born showing signs of life and dying during the neonatal period. Sixteen were born at 22 weeks’ gestation or later and death occurred between 1 and 270 minutes after birth (median: 66 minutes). The remaining 50 fetuses were born before 22 weeks’ gestation and death occurred between 0 and 615 minutes after birth (median: 55 minutes).

So at least one child was aborted, yet continued to breath unaided for 615 minutes (over 10 hours) after birth.

British newspapers that publicised this practice at the time stated that guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends babies over 22 weeks which survive abortion should have their hearts stopped by lethal injection.

J C

Nick Park wrote: »

British newspapers that publicised this practice at the time stated that guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends babies over 22 weeks which survive abortion should have their hearts stopped by lethal injection.

This is in dramatic contrast to the USA where the Born Alive Act protects children born alive during an abortion.

Quote:-
"H.R. 3504 would require that a child born alive during an attempted abortion be given the same medical treatment as any other child born at that gestation time would be. It would impose criminal penalties of fines or imprisonment of up to five years on medical practitioners that fail to do this, as well as punish medical practitioners that intentionally kill or attempt to kill a born-alive child for having intentionally killed or attempted to kill a human being. Related is the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002, which defined any fetus born alive after an attempted abortion at any age as a human child with all associated rights.

The bill was passed by a vote of 248-177. All opposing votes came from Democrats."

... all opposing votes came from Democrats ... and people wonder why Hilary wasn't elected !!!

Here is a survivor of a late term abortion ... who luckily wasn't killed after she was discovered to be alive after the abortion.
... an amazing, beautiful and powerful Christian woman.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

What a load of absolute nonsense.
Your entire post is irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with the current referendum here in Ireland.
I haven’t seen one single person in real life or online campaigning for the euthanisation of newborns in Ireland.
If you have, please direct me to same because I’d be very interested to see it.
More deflection and scaremongering.

You made the following statement ... and I responded to it:-

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No one is suggesting euthanasing newborns.

You were the one who raised the issue of child euthenasia ... and I linked to a New Scientist article on the subject .. hardly scaremongering, by any stretch of the imagination.

If Belgium already has it ... can 'Post-Holy Catholic Ireland' be far behind? ... especially, if a signal that 'anything goes' is given, by the repeal of the 8th.

Childhood euthenasia is all part of a continuum in the culture of death starting with the abortion of the unborn ... and ending with the euthanasia of the born.

end of the road

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually, anyone who advocates that we adopt UK-style abortion legislation (which, apparently, is necessary to stop Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions) is suggesting euthanising newborns.

An official report funded by the UK's Health Service revealed that babies are born alive after abortions and then left to die.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2016/11/perinatalmortality2005.pdf

Check out this little gem on page 28:

So at least one child was aborted, yet continued to breath unaided for 615 minutes (over 10 hours) after birth.

British newspapers that publicised this practice at the time stated that guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends babies over 22 weeks which survive abortion should have their hearts stopped by lethal injection.

i'm sadly not shocked by any of that. there is no level of barbarity that british abortion law won't allow it seems.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It isn’t considered, but you can’t say that the unborns lives are taken against their will/choice when we don’t know what their choice is or what it would be.

I'd have thought that the answer was obvious ... and they would want to live.
... but if you doubt me, I'll let another abortion survivor tell you whether unborn lives are taken against their will/choice in abortions.

Here Melissa Ohden is addressing a September 9, 2015 US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearing into 'rolling back' abortion in America.

Another powerful, strong Christian woman ... who was aborted but survived to 'blow the whistle' on this latter day horror.

recedite

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

So at least one child was aborted, yet continued to breath unaided for 615 minutes (over 10 hours) after birth.
British newspapers that publicised this practice at the time stated that guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recommends babies over 22 weeks which survive abortion should have their hearts stopped by lethal injection.

Effectively died of cold and neglect then. But it just goes to show how strong and healthy it was to have lived for so long, despite the intentions of the staff. If this child had been re-labelled as "a premaure baby" and given the warmth of an incubator, it may well have prospered.

Delirium

Two contrasting examples have been cited regarding what happens if the child survives the abortion (>= 22 weeks). UK leaves the child, while US endeavours to keep the child alive.

It's been stated more than once that Ireland will align itself with the UK model regarding the scenario I've mentioned. Can anyone show why that would be the case rather than the US model?