Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Delirium · 18-02-2018 06:00PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Now you're being disingenuous.
We're not talking about aborting sperm.

This from the poster who mentioned oranges.

So to you...are you ok with killing humans just because they're not wanted?

I'm okay with abortion on request up to 12 weeks. So to your question, generally no.

we now know that youre happy to abort a human foetus at 12 weeks. At what point would you be unhappy to do so.?

The answer is in your question, after 12 weeks.

J C · 18-02-2018 06:12PM

david75 wrote: »

Given the amount of time and vast amounts of posts in this thread I don’t see how you’d have time for much of anything else. An observation not an insult.
But you’re not paying attention as self appointed Catholic mouthpieces appear frequently and regularly on tv radio and in print on this issue.
Breda O Brien weekly and unchallenged in the Irish Times. David Quinn under every stone you can overturn.

Two Roman Catholic journalists presenting a Roman Catholic viewpoint (which isn't always shared by other Christians) to say nothing about other faiths.
... anyway, two token RC journalists drowned out amongst hundreds of other journalists.
... I don't think you could call that 'balanced' by any stretch of the imagination.

Schorpio · 18-02-2018 06:14PM

Lads, this thread is toxic.

As a pro-choice individual, I can completely understand and accept that there are legitimate reasons why some people could be anti-repeal. However, having followed this thread for a while, none of this is on display.

In fact, this thread could be held up as everything that is wrong with the save the 8th campaign. The level of scaremongering, cartoon 'scientific' drawings, and general misinformation floating about is unreal. Also, just because a statement is written in bold doesn't make it true.

Here's the kicker though lads - we're all wasting our time. Nobody is going to sway anyone's opinion in this thread. Equally, people on the fence aren't going to wade through all of these posts.

On a side note, there were similar posts/posters around the time of the marriage referendum, and look how that turned out. Some of the (what I would refer to as) 'old' Irish mentality is still alive and well here, but I don't think it's representative of the general populous......and long may that continue to be the case.

J C · 18-02-2018 06:16PM

Delirium wrote: »

This from the poster who mentioned oranges.

I'm okay with abortion on request up to 12 weeks. So to your question, generally no.

The answer is in your question, after 12 weeks.

Would you be happy to place the 12 week limit in the constitution ... or is your commitment to the 12 week limit, just because the politicians think this is as far as they can push the people and get the 8th repealed ... and then it will be 'whatever you are having yourself' !!!

Delirium · 18-02-2018 06:21PM

J C wrote: »

Would you be happy to place the 12 week limit in the constitution ... or is your commitment to the 12 week limit, just because the politicians think this is as far as they can push the people and get the 8th repealed ... and then it will be 'whatever you are having yourself' !!!

No, I don't think that the limit should be in the constitution.

I could revise it downwards as science progresses and don't think a referendum should be required to modify the law to a smaller week limit.

end of the road · 18-02-2018 06:23PM

Schorpio wrote: »

Lads, this thread is toxic.

As a pro-choice individual, I can completely understand and accept that there are legitimate reasons why some people could be anti-repeal. However, having followed this thread for a while, none of this is on display.

In fact, this thread could be held up as everything that is wrong with the save the 8th campaign. The level of scaremongering, cartoon 'scientific' drawings, and general misinformation floating about is unreal. Also, just because a statement is written in bold doesn't make it true.

Here's the kicker though lads - we're all wasting our time. Nobody is going to sway anyone's opinion in this thread. Equally, people on the fence aren't going to wade through all of these posts.

On a side note, there were similar posts/posters around the time of the marriage referendum, and look how that turned out. Some of the (what I would refer to as) 'old' Irish mentality is still alive and well here, but I don't think it's representative of the general populous......and long may that continue to be the case.

the thread is fine, it has provided factual and indisputable information. wanting to protect the unborn's right to life is not the old irish mentality, but a modern progressive ideal. we aren't voting no to repeal because we believe the 8th to be a great act that must remain, we are voting no because the 8th remaining is the only option availible to insure the unborn's right to life is upheld, given the proposals on the table.

Schorpio · 18-02-2018 06:30PM

end of the road wrote: »

the thread is fine, it has provided factual and indisputable information. wanting to protect the unborn's right to life is not the old irish mentality, but a modern progressive ideal. we aren't voting no to repeal because we believe the 8th to be a great act that must remain, we are voting no because the 8th remaining is the only option availible to insure the unborn's right to life is upheld, given the proposals on the table.

If the information is 'indisputable', then please tell me how there are over 2k posts in this thread? We both know that the 'information' provided here has been disputed over, and over again.

And again - you're not protecting the unborn. The majority of women who want an abortion today can have one, but the need to travel for it. You're not protecting or preventing anyone. In fact, you're endangering the women.

But hey, I know your mind's not for changing and I'm wasting my time so I'm going to give this thread a miss from now on.

J C · 18-02-2018 06:32PM

Schorpio wrote: »

Lads, this thread is toxic.

Abortion is pretty 'toxic' for the unborn child that is killed.
... and you're worried that a boards thread might be 'toxic' .. for abortion???

Schorpio wrote: »

As a pro-choice individual, I can completely understand and accept that there are legitimate reasons why some people could be anti-repeal. However, having followed this thread for a while, none of this is on display.

In fact, this thread could be held up as everything that is wrong with the save the 8th campaign. The level of scaremongering, cartoon 'scientific' drawings, and general misinformation floating about is unreal. Also, just because a statement is written in bold doesn't make it true.

Rather than speaking in unfounded generalisations ... could you please stand up your accusations with examples from the thread ... otherwise people may not believe you ... and may conclude that you are the one doing the scaremongering.
I have posted anatomically correct scientifically vaidated images of unborn children, in all of their undoubted Humanity ... and they were criticised for being 'cartoons' ... but no reason was given as to why they weren't anatomically correct ... so we can safely assume that they are anatomically correct.

Schorpio wrote: »

Here's the kicker though lads - we're all wasting our time. Nobody is going to sway anyone's opinion in this thread. Equally, people on the fence aren't going to wade through all of these posts.

Maybe, maybe not.
Given the paucity of real information on the repeal of the 8th on MSM ... more people than usual will be relying on threads like this for infomation that has been 'vetted' by both sides through debate.

Schorpio wrote: »

On a side note, there were similar posts/posters around the time of the marriage referendum, and look how that turned out.

It was an issue about enshrining equality in the constitution ... this is about the removal of equality from the constitution.
If people are consistent between both referendums ... then the 8th won't be repealed.

Schorpio wrote: »

Some of the (what I would refer to as) 'old' Irish mentality is still alive and well here, but I don't think it's representative of the general populous......and long may that continue to be the case.

There are many wonderful young people 'on the side of the angels' on this one ... so young and old Ireland are both strongly pro-life.

uptherebels · 18-02-2018 06:40PM

J C wrote: »

There are many wonderful young people 'on the side of the angels' on this one ... so young and old Ireland are both strongly pro-life.

Any evidence for this or are you engaging in the usual anti choicer task of fabricating "facts"

J C · 18-02-2018 06:45PM

Delirium wrote: »

No, I don't think that the limit should be in the constitution.

I could revise it downwards as science progresses and don't think a referendum should be required to modify the law to a smaller week limit.

Ah now, come on Delirium, do you really believe what you are saying?

The reality is that all of the pressure will be to lift the time limit to be in line with English law ... because we apparently can't have any women going to England for abortions ... or so the pro-abortionists are maintaining.

uptherebels · 18-02-2018 06:47PM

J C wrote: »

I have posted anatomically correct scientifically vaidated images of unborn children, in all of their undoubted Humanity ... and they were criticised for being 'cartoons' ... but no reason was given as to why they weren't anatomically correct ... so we can safely assume that they are anatomically correct.

But why do you insist on posting cartoons and cgi? I mean actual pics are available so that means you choose the cartoons because you fell there is an advantage in using them over actual pics. I wonder why that is?

J C · 18-02-2018 06:48PM

uptherebels wrote: »

Any evidence for this or are you engaging in the usual anti choicer task of fabricating "facts"

All of the fact denial on this thread is on the pro-abortion side.
Ye are denying the fact of the humanity of the unborn child ... because to accept the truth you would be faced with the fact that every abortion kills a Human Being ... and ye can't be having that!!!

Here are Irish Pro-life young people ... and not an old man or woman in sight !!

Delirium · 18-02-2018 06:52PM

J C wrote: »

Ah now, come on Delirium, do you really believe what you are saying?

The reality is that all of the pressure will be to lift the time limit to be in line with English law ... because we apparently can't have any women going to England for abortions ... or so the pro-abortionists are maintaining.

JC, I'm done responding. You've insinuated I'm lying yet again.

If you can't be civil then go be a fly in someone else's ear.

end of the road · 18-02-2018 06:54PM

Schorpio wrote: »

If the information is 'indisputable', then please tell me how there are over 2k posts in this thread? We both know that the 'information' provided here has been disputed over, and over again.

And again - you're not protecting the unborn. The majority of women who want an abortion today can have one, but the need to travel for it. You're not protecting or preventing anyone. In fact, you're endangering the women.

But hey, I know your mind's not for changing and I'm wasting my time so I'm going to give this thread a miss from now on.

we are protecting the unborn's right to life as much as is practical. that doesn't mean we can and will stop all killings of the unborn, just like all the laws in relation to every other act don't eliminate that act.
it is quite likely that the 8th does stop some abortions, via one having to travel to england and pay for it. we are not endangering any women at all, they are choosing to travel to another country to procure an abortion. they should consider other options such as adoption if they feel having to travel to england will put them in danger. i'm not responsible for other people's actions, i'm responsible for my own. but thankfully society does prohibit acts that bring undue harm or bring death upon others, and in this case i will vote to insure society can continue to do this in relation to the unborn, even if it won't stop every unborn person from being killed. if we can stop 1, then that is 1 less unborn baby killed.

uptherebels wrote: »

Any evidence for this or are you engaging in the usual anti choicer task of fabricating "facts"

there are quite a surprising amount of young people who are pro-life.

david75 · 18-02-2018 06:54PM

For everyone that does decide to turn up to vote on the day (and that number will be worryingly low I reckon) the issue will be distilled down into two simple points. Which is more important, the life and health of a woman in the here and now or do we force her to travel or force her to carry to term? It’s going to be decided in their minds long before they go in (if it isn’t alrrady) and no amount of debate or anything from either side will sway that.

I personally know nobody who’s undecided. Everyone I know is voting to repeal. It wasn’t as clear cut among the same family and friends in marriage equality but again, the undecideds I knew were confident yes votes when they were exposed to the lies and hysteria from the no campaign.
Same tactics being employed by save the 8th here to even more disasterous effects for their campigan.
The previous poster was correct. Threads like these aren’t changing anyone’s minds. They are a great indicator of how deluded many of the pro life side actually are. Up to and including a chap a while back saying he was speaking for god and anyone voting to repeal will go to hell.
Yep. Keep letting those guys speak. Their doing wonders for the repeal side.

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-02-2018 06:56PM

Delirium wrote: »

This from the poster who mentioned oranges.

I'm okay with abortion on request up to 12 weeks. So to your question, generally no.

The answer is in your question, after 12 weeks.

Why 12 weeks? Why not 11 or 13?
When is the foetus human? When is abortion the arbortion of a human?

uptherebels · 18-02-2018 06:59PM

J C wrote: »

All of the fact denial on this thread is on the pro-abortion side.
Ye are denying the fact of the humanity of the unborn child ... because to accept the truth you would be faced with the fact that every abortion kills a Human Being ... and ye can't be having that!!!

Here are Irish Pro-life young people ... and not an old man or woman in sight !!

you claimed both young and old ireland are strongly pro life a picturee of a couple of young people does not prove this. Good thing i wasn't holding my breath waiting for anti choicers to provide any evidence as usual

All of the fact denial is by pro choice?:pac::pac: another example of making it up as you go along. Need to take those blinkers off

J C · 18-02-2018 07:02PM

uptherebels wrote: »

But why do you insist on posting cartoons and cgi? I mean actual pics are available so that means you choose the cartoons because you fell there is an advantage in using them over actual pics. I wonder why that is?

The last image is from Medicine Plus ... a US Government Agency ... so it is an objectively true image of a 12 week old unborn child.

The images are somewhat clearer than ultrasound images ... and they are a true image ... so, why shouldn't I use them?

The fact that these images seem to have the same effect as garlic on a vampire ... on pro-abortion advocates tells pro-lifers that they are on to something with these images.
... and that something is the obvious humanity of the unborn children being killed in abortion.

uptherebels · 18-02-2018 07:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

there are quite a surprising amount of young people who are pro-life.

i'm not disputing that . J.C claimed young and old ireland, i.e the young and old in the country as a whole is strongly pro life.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 07:04PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Why 12 weeks? Why not 11 or 13?
When is the foetus human? When is abortion the arbortion of a human?

It's 10 weeks before viability. I'd consider the foetus a human being at 20+ weeks.

11 would be fine, 13 I'd be asking why the extra week is needed.

NuMarvel · 18-02-2018 07:05PM

end of the road wrote: »

no, what i what i want is a new constitutional provision that protects the unborn and the mother, and allows for necessary abortions.

It's been explained more than once why that's not a runner. The TL;DR version is that the constitution isn't the place to deal with complex clinical issues. You may want it, but it's simply not feasible unless you have a solution to address those problems.

end of the road wrote: »

voting repeal isn't going to deliver the change i want, voting no will protect the unborn. i'm not expecting lots of referendums should no be successful, but i am happy to hold out for whatever length it takes to get the change that is good for society, rather then what is proposed which is bad for society.

Voting No isn't going to deliver the change you want either. Nothing's going to deliver the change you want, because what you want can't be done. Nor will voting No protect the unborn, because women will continue to travel or import pills or take more extreme measures.

Anyone who thinks a No vote is going to make this or future governments consider having another abortion referendum in the foreseeable future is deluding themselves. This will be the end of the matter for a decade if not more, so if they really want change, this will be their only chance to get it. If they decide to vote No anyway, then chances are they didn't want meaningful change in the first place.

end of the road · 18-02-2018 07:12PM

david75 wrote: »

Same tactics being employed by save the 8th here to even more disasterous effects for their campigan.

this is wishful thinking with no basis in fact and reality. there is no evidence the pro-life's tactics are disasterous in terms of their campaign.

david75 wrote: »

The previous poster was correct. Threads like these aren’t changing anyone’s minds. They are a great indicator of how deluded many of the pro life side actually are.

they aren't a great indicator of anything of the sort.

david75 wrote: »

Yep. Keep letting those guys speak. Their doing wonders for the repeal side.

this is more wishful thinking with no basis in fact and reality. there is no evidence that the pro-life view is turning people to the repeal camp.

J C · 18-02-2018 07:14PM

uptherebels wrote: »

you claimed both young and old ireland are strongly pro life a picturee of a couple of young people does not prove this. Good thing i wasn't holding my breath waiting for anti choicers to provide any evidence as usual

All of the fact denial is by pro choice?:pac::pac: another example of making it up as you go along. Need to take those blinkers off

My original post was in response to a post that stated that pro-life was largely 'old' Ireland and it was as follows:-

Originally Posted by J C

There are many wonderful young people 'on the side of the angels' on this one ... so young and old Ireland are both strongly pro-life.

... and I posted a picture showing young pro-life people marching.

I don't see anything made up about any of this.

end of the road · 18-02-2018 07:16PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's been explained more than once why that's not a runner. The TL;DR version is that the constitution isn't the place to deal with complex clinical issues. You may want it, but it's simply not feasible unless you have a solution to address those problems.

Voting No isn't going to deliver the change you want either. Nothing's going to deliver the change you want, because what you want can't be done. Nor will voting No protect the unborn, because women will continue to travel or import pills or take more extreme measures.

Anyone who thinks a No vote is going to make this or future governments consider having another abortion referendum in the foreseeable future is deluding themselves. This will be the end of the matter for a decade if not more, so if they really want change, this will be their only chance to get it. If they decide to vote No anyway, then chances are they didn't want meaningful change in the first place.

voting no will protect the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and will protect some unborn babies from being killed. even if it only protects 1, that's 1 less unborn baby killed.

J C · 18-02-2018 07:20PM

Delirium wrote: »

It's 10 weeks before viability. I'd consider the foetus a human being at 20+ weeks.

11 would be fine, 13 I'd be asking why the extra week is needed.

Plenty of 'room' there to move the time upwards and onwards ... and the 8th isn't even repealed yet.

I'm actually surprised that they are going with unlimited 12 week abortion ... when the objective is to repeal the 8th and not get caught out on controversial abortion proposals ... which could bring down the campaign to repeal the 8th.

... anyway, the unborn are grateful for small miracles.

david75 · 18-02-2018 07:23PM

end of the road wrote: »

this is wishful thinking with no basis in fact and reality. there is no evidence the pro-life's tactics are disasterous in terms of their campaign.

they aren't a great indicator of anything of the sort.

this is more wishful thinking with no basis in fact and reality. there is no evidence that the pro-life view is turning people to the repeal camp.

You’re in another thread where several participants are outraged by the use of graphic imagery on billboards held by campaigners of the PLC and their young kids seeing it making them upset. And you’re defending the use of the posters.

That is the definition of plc shooting itself in the foot on display 100%. You’re deluding yourself if you can’t see that.

That kind of campaigning IS turning people off your campaign and you can’t see it.
The same lies scaremongering and misleading tactics were used in marref and it lost it for the no campaign.

Want proof??

The no campaign LOST.

It’s wishful thinking on your part that these all aren’t realities but they are I’m glad to tell you.

J C · 18-02-2018 07:27PM

end of the road wrote: »

voting no will protect the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and will protect some unborn babies from being killed. even if it only protects 1, that's 1 less unborn baby killed.

It's a lot more than one.

It is estimated that the 8th has prevented over 250,000 unborn children being aborted since it was introduced.
Here is the methodology for establishing this figure.
Quote:-
“It’s estimated that 250,000 Irish people are alive today because abortion wasn’t available in Ireland”

Figures provided by the Life Institute show that it was calculated in this way:

Calculate the abortion rate in Ireland and in Britain every year since 1984, the year after the 8th Amendment was implemented
Assume abortion became legal in 1984, and apply the British abortion rate to the number of pregnancies in Ireland every year
All other things being equal, this yields the number of abortions that would have occurred in Ireland without the ban on abortion
The difference between this number, and the number of abortions actually undergone by Irish women in England and Wales is, according to the rubric, the number of abortions prevented by the 8th Amendment and the abortion ban
That number is 270,520

david75 · 18-02-2018 07:30PM

‘Facts’ from the ‘life institute’?

Grasping at straws there JC. They’re hardly unbiased and those figures look like they were totted up on the back of a napkin.

uptherebels · 18-02-2018 07:34PM

J C wrote: »

My original post was in response to a post that stated that pro-life was largely 'old' Ireland and it was as follows:-

Originally Posted by J C

There are many wonderful young people 'on the side of the angels' on this one ... so young and old Ireland are both strongly pro-life.

... and I posted a picture showing young pro-life people marching.

I don't see anything made up about any of this.

well then provide evidence that both young and old ireland are both strongly pro life.
So far you have shown that there are some young pro lifers in ireland. Some young people does not equal young ireland, so again please provide evidence showing such.

J C · 18-02-2018 07:37PM

david75 wrote: »

You’re in another thread where several participants are outraged by the use of graphic imagery on billboards held by campaigners of the PLC and their young kids seeing it making them upset. And you’re defending the use of the posters.

I do think that showing graphic images of aborted unborn children is counter productive for the PLC.

Much better to show a living 12 week old unborn child ... and stress the positive of keeping these children alive ... which actually is the objective of the PLC.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments