Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C · 17-02-2018 04:56PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

This may come as a shock to you JC but many women don't even report rape to their friends/family as they feel ashamed! My own cousin only admitted to being raped 8 years after it happened as she felt people would blame her!

I do find that shocking TBH ... and this needs to change.
Women who are raped need to feel that they can report the rape and they have no need to feel ashamed for something that they never consented to.
It is also vital that they receive proper medical treatment as soon as possible after the rape.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-02-2018 04:58PM

J C wrote: »

I do find that shocking TBH ... and this needs to change.
Women who are raped need to feel that they can report the rape and they have no need to feel ashamed for something that they never consented to.
It is also vital that they receive proper medical treatment as soon as possible after the rape.

I agree

And for those who are afraid to report it should have access to abortion services without Having to jump through hoops hence REPEAL THE 8TH!

end of the road · 17-02-2018 05:01PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Judging by the silence of Irish anti-repealers, it's okay when it happens abroad or in secret.

it's not okay, but there isn't much if anything that can be done to stop it. we can stop it from being legally availible in ireland though, and hopefully there will be enough numbers to insure it, for the greater good of humanity and society.

NuMarvel wrote: »

My stance is that the poster I replied to is being deliberately incendiary and isn't interested in a proper discussion of the matter. In this country, abortion isn't regarded as the killing of another human being. If it was, anti-repealers would be saying or doing a lot more about the thousands of women who travel or the hundreds who order pills every year.

customs mostly take care of the pill issue. it's not possible to stop people from traveling for a service that is legally availible in other countries, especially without effecting innocent pregnant women who aren't traveling for abortions.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I gave my opinion. You're being deliberately provocative, and abortion isn't the killing of another human being. Those are my opinions.

abortion is the killing of another human being. you are equating human being with person, which is not viable, given it's factually and scientifically correct that a fetus is a human being, but not quite a person yet. person hood will have different viewpoints as to when it begins, human being has a consensus as to when it begins.

NuMarvel wrote: »

As for being responsible for only what we can do, I'd remind you that we have stopped a girl from having an abortion overseas, so clearly we can, or at least could at one point. The issue for anti-repealers isn't that they can't, but that they don't want to in the first place.

it is simply that we can't. it is not viable without effecting innocent pregnant women, who aren't going abroad to procure abortions, we cannot stop people traveling or procuring legally availible services in other countries.

J C · 17-02-2018 05:01PM

david75 wrote: »

Wow.
JC. It’s 2018. Not 1930.

... and irresponsible behaviour is the same today as it was in 1930 !!!

NuMarvel · 17-02-2018 05:03PM

J C wrote: »

Nobody can be legally prosecuted for doing something in another juristiction, that isn't a crime in that juristiction ... even if some male or female feminist has told you that it is possible.

... so women who have abortions legally in England, cannot be presecuted in Ireland for doing so.

Putting things in bold doesn't make them true. There is precedent in Irish law for stopping someone having an abortion in a jurisdiction where it is legal, so clearly it could be done.

J C wrote: »

In any event, they need loving care for having done, what they know in their heart is such a terrible thing.
They have to live with what they have done ... killing their own child ... and that is punishment enough, IMO.

I have to say I didn't expect you of all people to support decriminalisation of abortion. Unfortunately, it can't be done without repeal of the 8th, so your "concern" rings hollow.

J C · 17-02-2018 05:06PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree

And for those who are afraid to report it should have access to abortion services without Having to jump through hoops hence REPEAL THE 8TH!

How does a woman who is supposedly 'afraid' to tell her doctor that she was raped ... and get proper medical treatment for the rape ... suddenly pluck up the courage to go and have an abortion ... which is orders of magnitude more difficult than ringing a doctor and getting ordinary medical treatment.

Delirium · 17-02-2018 05:07PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Putting things in bold doesn't make them true. There is precedent in Irish law for stopping someone having an abortion in a jurisdiction where it is legal, so clearly it could be done.

there was even a referendum to prevent it from happening again.

J C · 17-02-2018 05:11PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Putting things in bold doesn't make them true. There is precedent in Irish law for stopping someone having an abortion in a jurisdiction where it is legal, so clearly it could be done.

There is no precedent.

NuMarvel wrote: »

I have to say I didn't expect you of all people to support decriminalisation of abortion. Unfortunately, it can't be done without repeal of the 8th, so your "concern" rings hollow.

In common with most people, I have sympathy with woman who is in such extremis in her own mind, that she (erroneously) thinks the only way out is an abortion.
I am much less understanding of those who enclurage women to have abortions or who coldly perform abortions ... and I believe the law should punish the abortionist ... rather than the woman who has the abortion.

Delirium · 17-02-2018 05:13PM

J C wrote: »

There is no precedent.

The "X" case and subsequent referendum disproves (on the 13th amendment) that assertion.

david75 · 17-02-2018 05:13PM

J C wrote: »

... and irresponsible behaviour is the same today as it was in 1930 !!!

As is curtain twitching and controlling women’s bodies, it seems.

You said a few posts back that women have to live with themselves after having an abortion.
Isn’t that maybe some good advice from yourself to yourself you seem to be missing? It’s their decision to make. It’s never an easy decision to make. Leave them to make it for themselves. It’s none of our business.

J C · 17-02-2018 05:14PM

Delirium wrote: »

there was even a referendum to prevent it from happening again.

There was no need for the Referendum ... but it put it beyond all doubt, which was important ... because the exact same erroneous claims were being made at the time, that women could/should be prosecuted on their return from England, after aborting.

NuMarvel · 17-02-2018 05:17PM

Delirium wrote: »

there was even a referendum to prevent it from happening again.

And when you ask "pro lifers" if they'd vote to overturn that referendum, they say no. They want to maintain a situation that puts the freedom to travel above the unborn's rights, and actively prevents them from doing anything about women traveling.

It's an utterly bizarre and contradictory stance to one one hand espouse that the right to life is the most fundamental of all, and then be happy with our Constitution saying something completely different.

Timberrrrrrrr · 17-02-2018 05:18PM

J C wrote: »

How does a woman who is supposedly 'afraid' to tell her doctor that she was raped ... and get proper medical treatment for the rape ... suddenly pluck up the courage to go and have an abortion ... which is orders of magnitude more difficult than ringing a doctor and getting ordinary medical treatment.

Are you really this naive or are you just being obtuse? Many people in ireland go to the "family" doctor and a woman may feel that she cannot talk to him/her.

The faxt of the matter is that as long as the 8th is there then women will have to go through the trauma of travelling to the UK for an abortion. Hopefully that will change very soon.

J C · 17-02-2018 05:19PM

david75 wrote: »

As is curtain twitching and controlling women’s bodies, it seems.

You said a few posts back that women have to live with themselves after having an abortion.
Isn’t that maybe some good advice from yourself to yourself you seem to be missing? It’s their decision to make. It’s never an easy decision to make. Leave them to make it for themselves. It’s none of our business.

It is societies business, because there are two Human Beings involved ... and the right to life of both is important.
Society should do everything practicable, to quote the 8th, to ensure that women don't feel that they need to kill their unborn children ... and to prevent those who, despite not needing to abort, wish to do so, just because they want to.

Delirium · 17-02-2018 05:20PM

J C wrote: »

There was no need for the Referendum ... but it put it beyond all doubt, which was important ... because the exact same erroneous claims were being made at the time, that women could/should be prosecuted on their return from England, after aborting.

Without the referendum, it was entirely constitutional to stop a woman from travelling to get an abortion in another state.

NuMarvel · 17-02-2018 05:25PM

J C wrote: »

In common with most people, I have sympathy with woman who is in such extremis in her own mind, that she (erroneously) thinks the only way out is an abortion.
I am much less understanding of those who enclurage women to have abortions or who coldly perform abortions ... and I believe the law should punish the abortionist ... rather than the woman who has the abortion.

As I said, decriminilisation, even if just for the woman, can't happen without repeal of the 8th. So unless you support that, your sympathy is meaningless.

Bob_Marley · 17-02-2018 06:21PM

pilly wrote: »

So you want people to make an argument but not one you disagree with?

Why this constant pretending of what someone said instead of what they actually said. I want to hear an intelligent thought out pro-abortion argument I don't necessarily agree with, but one that isn't based on the fallacy of trying to dismiss the biological human life cycle, or the fallacy of pretending an unborn child is not a human life.

pilly wrote: »

FWIW my point of view is very simple and straight forward. Fully grown human women and their existing children are MORE important than an embryo. Now you can disagree with that all you like but you can't demand that I don't make that argument.

No innocent human life is more important or worthy of living than another, so that argument holds no water, so other than just simply repeating the fallacy that one human life is more superior to another, have you got anything else, anything of substance ?

david75 · 17-02-2018 06:23PM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Why this constant pretending of what someone said instead of what they actually said. I want to here an intelligent thought out pro-abortion argument I disagree with, and one that isn't trying to dismiss the biological human life cycle and pretend an unborn child is not a human life.

No innocent human life is more important or worthy of living than another, so that argument holds no water, so other that just simply repeating one human life is more superior to another, have you got anything else, anything of substance ?

I do. A foetus isn’t a baby. Nor a human life.

Bob_Marley · 17-02-2018 06:28PM

david75 wrote: »

I do. A foetus isn’t a baby. Nor a human life.

I said not a fallacous one that tries to deny the biological fact of human life, and the human life cycle, and what's the first thing that's posted ? One that does.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

end of the road · 17-02-2018 06:40PM

david75 wrote: »

As is curtain twitching and controlling women’s bodies, it seems.

if it was happening, you would have a point. it's not happening, nobody is controling women's bodies.

david75 wrote: »

You said a few posts back that women have to live with themselves after having an abortion.
Isn’t that maybe some good advice from yourself to yourself you seem to be missing?

no, not at all. if they are going to kill the unborn, they have to except the consiquences of that, which will be having to live with it and a large element of society disagreeing with their decisian.

david75 wrote: »

It’s their decision to make. It’s never an easy decision to make. Leave them to make it for themselves. It’s none of our business.

it's only their decisian to make in exceptional circumstances. outside that, just like the killing of any other human being, they have decided to do it, but they don't have the actual right to do it in this state, and rightly so. if they aren't going to be left to kill a born human being (rightly so) then it is correct that they aren't left to kill the unborn within this state. if it's none of our business when someone kills the unborn, then it's not our business when they kill a newborn or any other human being either. we should just strip away all the laws in relation to murder, rape, paedophilia etc, seeing as it's none of our business as a society. i'd bet you won't go for that however, as you realise we have to have laws rules and regulations in an attempt to control and prevent behaviour that unduely harms others.

end of the road · 17-02-2018 06:40PM

david75 wrote: »

I do. A foetus isn’t a baby. Nor a human life.

you don't. a fetus is a human life. that is indisputable and scientific fact. i understand those in favour of abortion on demand need to dehumanize the unborn to allow for them to be killed just because, but they are human lives and you will just have to except it. dehumanization is a tactic throughout societies throughout history to allow for the mistreatment, removal of rights from, or killing of those who those societies see as lesser then them.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you really this naive or are you just being obtuse? Many people in ireland go to the "family" doctor and a woman may feel that she cannot talk to him/her.

The faxt of the matter is that as long as the 8th is there then women will have to go through the trauma of travelling to the UK for an abortion. Hopefully that will change very soon.

i don't believe that having to go to england for an abortion on demand is traumatic. in a case of FFA where the baby is wanted then absolutely it is but the current laws that allow for abortion in exceptional circumstances can be changed to allow abortion in these cases.

david75 · 17-02-2018 07:10PM

end of the road wrote: »

if it was happening, you would have a point. it's not happening, nobody is controling women's bodies.

no, not at all. if they are going to kill the unborn, they have to except the consiquences of that, which will be having to live with it and a large element of society disagreeing with their decisian.

it's only their decisian to make in exceptional circumstances. outside that, just like the killing of any other human being, they have decided to do it, but they don't have the actual right to do it in this state, and rightly so. if they aren't going to be left to kill a born human being (rightly so) then it is correct that they aren't left to kill the unborn within this state. if it's none of our business when someone kills the unborn, then it's not our business when they kill a newborn or any other human being either. we should just strip away all the laws in relation to murder, rape, paedophilia etc, seeing as it's none of our business as a society. i'd bet you won't go for that however, as you realise we have to have laws rules and regulations in an attempt to control and prevent behaviour that unduely harms others.

Passing judgements?
What consequences? From who exactly?
Large elements of society disagreeing with them? To what end? Again you’re missing the point.
It’s nobody else’s business.
Once again a foetus is not a baby. It is not a child. Therefore your argument is flawed to begin with.

end of the road · 17-02-2018 07:25PM

david75 wrote: »

Passing judgements?
What consequences? From who exactly?
Large elements of society disagreeing with them? To what end? Again you’re missing the point.
It’s nobody else’s business.
Once again a foetus is not a baby. It is not a child. Therefore your argument is flawed to begin with.

it's society's business, as an act is being commited that involves the taking of the life of another human being, which a fetus is . society makes the taking of life it's business, as it recognises that outside very limited circumstances there is no justification for it to happen, therefore it has a duty to stop it as much as practical to do so. in the case of the born, it's via the laws that punish people for killing, for the unborn, it's via the laws that prohibit those who wish to kill the unborn outside medically necessary circumstances, from doing so within the irish state. however the irish state understands that it's not practical to stop people traveling, even if to use services that facilitate such a barbaric act, and the laws therefore reflect that.
you don't even have an argument, having to resort to denying facts and dehumanizing human beings, to justify the unjustifiable. the same as societies across history have done to those they feel are lesser then them, such as blacks, jews, gays, unmarried and single mothers and their children, etc. now in many countries it's the turn of the unborn to be that scapegoat. but it doesn't have to be that way here. we can stop it by voting no to repeal of the 8th and seeking better proposals that protect both the unborn and the mother, allowing for abortion where medically necessary, which in turn would make the equality part of the 8th redundant.
nobody mentioned child or baby, but a fetus will become those long before being born.

david75 · 17-02-2018 07:42PM

Same copy and paste non answer.

It’s to the pro life campaigns undoing that they can’t see past this totally blinkered hardwired myopia and refusal of all other opinions and ideas that will lose this referendum for them.

It’s a tired old and transparent game to muddy the waters in a campaign and try cause hysteria and fear. But the imperious moralising and lecturing about ‘living with consequences’ and imposing moral superiority in an issue where it doesn’t belong will be the clincher. You really think anyone of voting age in Ireland in 2018 will buy anything in your last post?

You guys are losing it for yourselves with the same old clapped out methods and arguments.

It’s almost like you’re debating an entirely different issue, you’re over there in the ether and probably and we’re all here in the real world and factual.

end of the road · 17-02-2018 08:04PM

david75 wrote: »

Same copy and paste non answer.

It’s to the pro life campaigns undoing that they can’t see past this totally blinkered hardwired myopia and refusal of all other opinions and ideas that will lose this referendum for them.

It’s a tired old and transparent game to muddy the waters in a campaign and try cause hysteria and fear. But the imperious moralising and lecturing about ‘living with consequences’ and imposing moral superiority in an issue where it doesn’t belong will be the clincher. You really think anyone of voting age in Ireland in 2018 will buy anything in your last post?

You guys are losing it for yourselves with the same old clapped out methods and arguments.

It’s almost like you’re debating an entirely different issue, you’re over there in the ether and probably and we’re all here in the real world and factual.

more wishful thinking with no basis in reality. you are obsessed with such wishful thinking and everything you have claimed will lose us the referendum does not stand up to scruteny.
the only thing that will lose the referendum for us is there being a greater number who support the availability of being able to kill the unborn on demand and at the tax payer's expence. our arguments are solid and will have no effect on the outcome of the referendum. the pro-choice arguments in relation to the availability of abortion on demand don't stack up and stand up to scruteny, the only real argument they have is they want to be able to have an abortion on demand, which is not an argument ultimately. after all, other people want the right to commit acts that harm or cause the death of others, and rightly they are told no.
moralising and lecturing about ‘living with consequences’ and imposing moral superiority is the main basis of a society, via the laws which restrict one's ability to commit acts which bring undue harm upon others or cause the taking of their life. if you don't want moralising and lecturing in relation to these areas, and believe that moralising and lecturing and consiquences have no place in relation to an issue which involves an act that is similar to those which involve the born, then you have to support the removal of the laws which prohibit us from carying out acts that bring undue harm upon others as well as your support for the removal of an act which prohibits the killing of the unborn within the state.

david75 · 17-02-2018 08:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

more wishful thinking with no basis in reality. you are obsessed with such wishful thinking and everything you have claimed will lose us the referendum does not stand up to scruteny.
the only thing that will lose the referendum for us is there being a greater number who support the availability of being able to kill the unborn on demand and at the tax payer's expence. our arguments are solid and will have no effect on the outcome of the referendum. the pro-choice arguments in relation to the availability of abortion on demand don't stack up and stand up to scruteny, the only real argument they have is they want to be able to have an abortion on demand, which is not an argument ultimately. after all, other people want the right to commit acts that harm or cause the death of others, and rightly they are told no.
moralising and lecturing about ‘living with consequences’ and imposing moral superiority is the main basis of a society, via the laws which restrict one's ability to commit acts which bring undue harm upon others or cause the taking of their life. if you don't want moralising and lecturing in relation to these areas, and believe that moralising and lecturing and consiquences have no place in relation to an issue which involves an act that is similar to those which involve the born, then you have to support the removal of the laws which prohibit us from carying out acts that bring undue harm upon others as well as your support for the removal of an act which prohibits the killing of the unborn within the state.

So are there two people running the EOTR account?
Different Posting styles, language and sudden lurches in grammar and spelling.
Odd that.

What claims does your piety morals and faith have in a woman’s body and self determination?

uck51js9zml2yt · 17-02-2018 08:29PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I gave my opinion. You're being deliberately provocative, and abortion isn't the killing of another human being. Those are my opinions.

As for being responsible for only what we can do, I'd remind you that we have stopped a girl from having an abortion overseas, so clearly we can, or at least could at one point. The issue for anti-repealers isn't that they can't, but that they don't want to in the first place.

So what is arbortion the killing of?..an orange?

SusieBlue · 17-02-2018 08:31PM

It’s grand to say having to travel for an abortion isn’t traumatic, when you, a man, will never have to go through the distress of having a crisis pregnancy or have to travel to procure said abortion. It’s so dismissive.

Such horrible language in this thread... ‘pump and dump’ ... ‘too posh to push’ ... An absolutely disgusting way to speak about women. Women who could be your wife, daughter, sister, or friend.
Women whose circumstance you’ll never know.

What qualifies the pro life side to dictate what is best for women they’ll never meet?
What makes them a better judge than the woman themselves of what they can and cannot cope with?

I think some people are borderline obsessed with the potential bedroom activities of strangers they’ll never meet (worrying about how or why people have ONS) that if they put that much effort into improving the support and opportunities for children and families who are actually HERE, there would be no need for abortion at all.

uck51js9zml2yt · 17-02-2018 08:31PM

david75 wrote: »

I do. A foetus isn’t a baby. Nor a human life.

What kind of life is it? I've checked my biology books and its definitely not an orange life!

SusieBlue · 17-02-2018 08:32PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

What kind of life is it? I've checked my biology books and its definitely not an orange life!

It isn’t more important than the wants and needs of the woman carrying it.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments