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

david75

J C wrote: »

The question you asked originally is if it was a photo ... as distinct from a CGI ... and we have now told you how photographs of unborn children at various stages of gestation were first taken ... which was outside the womb ... with the unborn child 'staged' to reflect reality within the womb.

I don't know ... but I would have thought that with micro cameras and keyhold surgery ... that actual colour images and video of live unborn children within the womb are now possible.

you can’t break the amniotic sack or whatever it’s called. At any point.
The womb would be compromised and leaking. It’s impossible without killing the occupant.

That’s why using these images is misleading. You just admitted you din even know they’re real. They aren’t.

david75

10-week-old human fetus surrounded by amniotic fluid within the amniotic sac

File:Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg

File:Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg

J C

david75 wrote: »

you can’t break the amniotic sack or whatever it’s called. At any point.
The womb would be compromised and leaking. It’s impossible without killing the occupant.

That’s why using these images is misleading. You just admitted you din even know they’re real. They aren’t.

Of course they were real.
... and they were and are an amazing and fascinating set of photos of what goes on in the uterus at each stage during pregnancy.

... and with the advent of fetal surgery in utero ... it is obviously possible to invade the amniotic sac without compromising it ... though I don't think that photography would be a sole reason (or perhaps even be allowed at all) during such an invasion of the uterus.

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

Quote:-
"Upon completion of the fetal surgery, the fetus is put back inside the uterus and the uterus and abdominal wall are closed up. Before the last stitch is made in the uterine wall, the amniotic fluid is replaced."

end of the road

pilly wrote: »

No it is NOT a photo. I think it's you sir that needs some schooling. Unless you can explain how someone got a camera into the womb.

I don't believe anyone is that stupid so I'll just call it what it is. LIES.

nope wrong not lies but accurate correct information.

pilly wrote: »

What? Photos of dead fetus?

Bob is claiming Getty take photos of live ones.

they do. bob is correct.

pilly wrote: »

Again, tell me how someone gets a camera into the womb?

I personally don't care what it looks like. What I do have issue with are LIES.

just as well you were told no lies then. it was explained a couple of posts back how the doctor was able to take the pictures.

david75 wrote: »

And yet your beliefs Re invading women’s bodies personal lives and choices.

That’s hypocritical

Completely hypocritical

nope just preventing them from killing the unborn outside medical necessity. nothing hypocritical about that.

david75

I’m currently reading the marriage equality thread.

Amazing to see the same fear and nonsense being used here as was there.

J C

david75 wrote: »

I’m currently reading the marriage equality thread.

Amazing to see the same fear and nonsense being used here as was there.

Your'e looking at an equality creation proposal ... to see parallells with equality destruction proposal?

... good luck with that.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

I’m currently reading the marriage equality thread.

Amazing to see the same fear and nonsense being used here as was there.

there is no comparison between the marriage equality referendum and the unborn inequality referendum, aka repeal the 8th.
the marriage equality referendum was about bringing equality for gay people in terms of availing of marriage, something there was no argument against.
this referendum is about removing equality for the unborn in terms of the right to life, for which there is no argument in favour, yet nothing but arguments against.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

there is no comparison between the marriage equality referendum and the unborn inequality referendum, aka repeal the 8th.
the marriage equality referendum was about bringing equality for gay people in terms of availing of marriage, something there was no argument against.
this referendum is about removing equality for the unborn in terms of the right to life, for which there is no argument in favour, yet nothing but arguments against.

All the people who campaigned against it thought they had an argument. They were quite emphatic that there was no need for it. What's more, all of those people are campaigning for a No vote now too. Considering many of them have a history of opposing equality, I find it hard to believe they've seen the light about it now.

And in any case, the unborn hasn't had an equal right to life since the 13th and 14th Amendments; amendments no one wants to overturn, even in the name of equality. This referendum can't remove or destroy equality for the unborn because it doesn't presently exist.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Presumably, you'd be OK with it when its consensual.

MOD NOTE

Banned for one day for that disgraceful response.

Please raise the standard of your posts if you wish to continue to have access to the forum on your return.

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

10-week-old human fetus surrounded by amniotic fluid within the amniotic sac

Tests for downes syndrome are done by taking fluid from the amniotic sac.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it should continue to have equal rights unless medically necessary however, which is the actual case. the fetus doesn't currently have rights over the mother.

Bob_Marley

David - Truly ashamed and sorry for your troubles and hurt. A totally innocent kid. - You can post what you like here from now on, I won't be criticising it. I hope those responsible and those who failed to do anything meet the full justice they deserve some day. So sorry and I know words are not very much use.

david75

Thanks but I’m not special, it happened all over, to loads of us. Forgiving is easier than forgetting in my case but won’t be defined by it. People have been through worse as well.

Back on topic though.

Do we have any idea what kind of model our legislation will follow? How does that work? Are they writing our own specific to our constitution or will the borrow the UKs or Germany’s and just adapt it?

Do we have any idea how many people and legal staff they have working on all this?
Be cool to know how it works and who gets to nix or approve final drafts

J C

Delerium wrote:

MOD NOTE
Banned for one day for that disgraceful response.
Please raise the standard of your posts if you wish to continue to have access to the forum on your return.

Firstly, David75, I think that you deserve an unreserved apology from me – my reply to your post was totally inappropriate.

Secondly, Dave75, I think that you deserve an explanation from me about how I came to post the reply to your post that I did. There were many posts coming in rapid succession at the time and I simply read the last line of your post, quoted it and replied to the quote. I didn’t read the full post, I should have read the full post … and had I done so I certainly wouldn’t have replied as I did. Not an excuse ... but that is how it happened.

Thirdly, Dave75, I wish to sympathise with you on the horror you endured, as a 9 year old. I hope that you can get justice and find peace after the horrific ordeal you went through.

When yourself and Pilly complained, I genuinely didn’t know what you were complaining about … and I went to bed totally unaware of what I had done.
I am now aware of it and deeply sorry for not sympathising with you, instead of making the glib comment that I made. I couldn't believe that I missed reading the middle of your post.

Delerium, I also wish to apologise to you and the Mods … it will not happen again and I will read the entirety of all posts I respond to, in the future.

:o:o

J C

david75 wrote: »

Thanks but I’m not special, it happened all over, to loads of us. Forgiving is easier than forgetting in my case but won’t be defined by it. People have been through worse as well.

Sadly, all too true ... and I'm glad that you seem to be able to not let it define you ... or damage your life further. Hats off and absolute admiration for you.

J C

david75

No offence taken JC. I’ve done the same without thinking

Were an awful passionate lot aren’t we, all the same?

J C

david75 wrote: »

No offence taken JC. I’ve done the same without thinking
Were an awful passionate lot aren’t we, all the same?

Thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology.

You're a good guy David.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Do we have any idea what kind of model our legislation will follow? How does that work? Are they writing our own specific to our constitution or will the borrow the UKs or Germany’s and just adapt it?

The legislation is being drafted on the premise that the 8th will be repealed ... and the current government position, which has been argued last week in the Supreme Court, is that the unborn has no constitutional rights, other than the right to life enshrined in the 8th. In this regard, they are confirming the validity of the legal arguments back in 1983, which said precisely this ... and successfully argued for the necessity of having the 8th to protect unborn children, in the first place.

If there is a model that they will follow, it will probably be the English law on abortion. The current proposal for 12 weeks unlimited abortion is actually more liberal than the current Engish law (in relation to unborn children under 12 weeks).
We have yet to hear what other situations where abortion will be allowed after 12 weeks ... but undoubtedly there will be some.

Of course, this is only the initial legislation (to be published before the referendum as a guide to what to expect as soon as the 8th is repealed) ... and it is obvious that it will move towards the full English model ... if not beyond, in a relatively short time, if the 8th is repealed.

david75 wrote: »

Do we have any idea how many people and legal staff they have working on all this?
Be cool to know how it works and who gets to nix or approve final drafts

The Cabinet will get to approve or amend the final draft ... that's where it will stay unless and until the 8th is repealed.
If the 8th is repeald, it will then be debated in the Senate and the Dail ... when further amendments may be suggested and made respectivley, before the legislation may be passed and signed into law.

If the 8th isn't repealed ... then it will be back to the drawing board ... when any proposed new abortion legislation will have to conform with the protection afforded both the mother and the unborn child, as enshrined in the 8th.

NuMarvel

The proposed legislation is more like the rest of Europe than Britain's. 23 out of 32 EU/EEA countries allow access on request within given timeframes, and for specified reasons after that. And for countries with an on-request model, 12 weeks is the most common timeframe.

From what I can see, all EU/EEA countries where abortion is available introduced their current laws after the British Abortion Act, but none of them have made any attempts to amend their laws to mirror the British law. In most cases, the laws have remained unchanged since being introduced, which in some cases is decades ago. Any recent attempts to change the laws have been to make them more restrictive, not less (eg Spain and Poland)

There is absolutely no basis for believing that our laws would be changed in "a relatively short time". That's not the pattern elsewhere in Europe, and it's certainly not the pattern here as we saw with the 20 year wait to legislate for the X Case.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

The legislation is being drafted on the premise that the 8th will be repealed ... and the current government position, which has been argued last week in the Supreme Court, is that the unborn has no constitutional rights, other than the right to life enshrined in the 8th. In this regard, they are confirming the validity of the legal arguments back in 1983, which said precisely this ... and successfully argued for the necessity of having the 8th to protect unborn children, in the first place.

If there is a model that they will follow, it will probably be the English law on abortion. The current proposal for 12 weeks unlimited abortion is actually more liberal than the current Engish law (in relation to unborn children under 12 weeks).
We have yet to hear what other situations where abortion will be allowed after 12 weeks ... but undoubtedly there will be some.

Of course, this is only the initial legislation (to be published before the referendum as a guide to what to expect as soon as the 8th is repealed) ... and it is obvious that it will move towards the full English model ... if not beyond, in a relatively short time, if the 8th is repealed.

The Cabinet will get to approve or amend the final draft ... that's where it will stay unless and until the 8th is repealed.
If the 8th is repeald, it will then be debated in the Senate and the Dail ... when further amendments may be suggested and made respectivley, before the legislation may be passed and signed into law.

If the 8th isn't repealed ... then it will be back to the drawing board ... when any proposed new abortion legislation will have to conform with the protection afforded both the mother and the unborn child, as enshrined in the 8th.

Do you have proof for this wild claim or is it just your opinion?

david75

And things move glacially slowly here with regards legislation, let’s not forget that. It can take years for anything to happen.

Except the time they accidentally made mdma legal in some drug bill.

They fixed that almost within a day

J C

david75 wrote: »

And things move glacially slowly here with regards legislation, let’s not forget that. It can take years for anything to happen.

Except the time they accidentally made mdma legal in some drug bill.

They fixed that almost within a day

You are correct that things can move glacially slow ... but not always, as you have just illustrated.

I think that abortion, if the 8th is repealed, will move fast ... there will be draft legislation already published ... and a pent up public expectation for legislating.

What would be the point of repealing the 8th, if legislation doesn't follow rapidly?

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

The proposed legislation is more like the rest of Europe than Britain's. 23 out of 32 EU/EEA countries allow access on request within given timeframes, and for specified reasons after that. And for countries with an on-request model, 12 weeks is the most common timeframe.

From what I can see, all EU/EEA countries where abortion is available introduced their current laws after the British Abortion Act, but none of them have made any attempts to amend their laws to mirror the British law. In most cases, the laws have remained unchanged since being introduced, which in some cases is decades ago. Any recent attempts to change the laws have been to make them more restrictive, not less (eg Spain and Poland)

There is absolutely no basis for believing that our laws would be changed in "a relatively short time". That's not the pattern elsewhere in Europe, and it's certainly not the pattern here as we saw with the 20 year wait to legislate for the X Case.

None of those countries have high profile political campaigns arguing that their pregnant women should not have to travel to England for abortion, like we do in Ireland.

In any event, unrestricted abortion at 12 weeks is very radical already.

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

And things move glacially slowly here with regards legislation, let’s not forget that. It can take years for anything to happen.

Case in point: The current Public Health Alcohol Bill was introduced back in December 2015 and the way things are going it will be sometime in 2019 before it's passed and in force.

J C wrote: »

I think that abortion, if the 8th is repealed, will move fast ... there will be draft legislation already published ... and a pent up public expectation for legislating.

What would be the point of repealing the 8th, if legislation doesn't follow rapidly?

Your argument isn't that there will be new legislation post repeal; it's that this legislation will be significantly changed "in a relatively short time".

There's absolutely no rational basis for thinking this is likely.

J C wrote: »

None of those countries have high profile political campaigns arguing that their pregnant women should not have to travel to England for abortion, like we do in Ireland.

That's probably something to do with the fact that their pregnant women don't have to travel for to England for an abortion.

As evidenced by the fact that of the women who travel to Britain from another European country, 92% come from just one country; Ireland.

J C wrote: »

In any event, unrestricted abortion at 12 weeks is very radical already.

It's very much the European norm. It just looks radical because you're viewing it through the prism of the 8th, which is itself an extreme.

david75

That’s a good point.

There are by far more alcohol related deaths in Ireland annually than there are abortions.

So following that .....

J C

david75 wrote: »

That’s a good point.

There are by far more alcohol related deaths in Ireland annually than there are abortions.

So following that .....

People die all the time ... it is deliberately killing them that is morally (and legally) reprehensible.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

None of those countries have high profile political campaigns arguing that their pregnant women should not have to travel to England for abortion, like we do in Ireland.

In any event, unrestricted abortion at 12 weeks is very radical already.

Except it's not, it's closer to the norm in most of Europe than the British 24 week/access controlled law is.

And what is really radical is a ban that requires a woman to be at risk of death before abortion is allowed.

You also seem to be contradicting yourself. You said it was more radical than British law, but that if it passed, Ireland would inevitably move towrds the British form all the same.

Looks like a clear case of having your scaremongering cake and eating it, to me.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

And what is really radical is a ban that requires a woman to be at risk of death before abortion is allowed.

That sounds a bit melodramatic!
If there is any threat to her life at all, abortion is already allowed in Ireland.
Which actually has the same meaning as what you said..

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

That sounds a bit melodramatic!
If there is any threat to her life at all, abortion is already allowed in Ireland.
Which actually has the same meaning as what you said..

If it has the same meaning, what is the difference? You'd prefer it not to sound quite as bad, is that all?

But in fact your version is untrue, it's not "any threat to her life at all" it has to be "a real and substantial risk" to her life. Not a potential risk to her life, and not a small risk to her life.

That was part of the hospital's defence in the investigation into Savita Hallapanavar, IIRC, that she had to be at over 50% risk of death, and since there is no way of measuring the change from 49% to 51%, they were not at obvious fault for having missed that.

And yes, refusing to treat someone because even though their health is in danger, they are not yet at substantial risk of death is pretty shocking. Would you really be happy to be told that your ongoing heart problems were not yet bad enough to be treated, even though you were in pain and your health was suffering, and they would wait until you were actually at risk of dying before beginning treatment?