Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1106107109111112174

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,658 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    As a woman, I find it quite offensive to be told that I am being melodramatic for stating the reality of the situation : my health is explicitly dismissed as a reason for medical treatment, and only a substantial risk to my life is worth acting on.

    And I'm being "melodramatic" for thinking that isn't really good enough?

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,855 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    volchitsa wrote: »
    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.


    Oh the irony :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


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

    at risk, meaning any risk of death and she can have an abortion in ireland. it's a good law as abortion should only be availible where medically necessary. outside that, no abortion, put the child up for adoption once born.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    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.

    he's not wrong though. it's likely we would move toards the uk model quite quickly because of the continued screaming about women having to travel to the uk and pay for an abortion.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    Looks like a clear case of having your scaremongering cake and eating it, to me.

    no scaremongering involved, the pro-life don't do scaremongering but think about the long term and the possibilities it may bring. long term thinking is the name of the game, not short term.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    the pro-life don't do scaremongering

    The pro life side were literally prophesising abortion up to birth if we legislated for the X Case. If that's not scare mongering, I don't know what is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    volchitsa wrote: »
    As a woman, I find it quite offensive to be told that I am being melodramatic for stating the reality of the situation : my health is explicitly dismissed as a reason for medical treatment, and only a substantial risk to my life is worth acting on.

    And I'm being "melodramatic" for thinking that isn't really good enough?

    the only thing that was said out of what you wrote was that you were being a bit melodramatic.
    ....... wrote: »
    It IS offensive.

    Its very much a consequence of a woman being viewed as a second class citizen.

    women are not viewed as second class citizens in ireland. not being able to kill the unborn at the tax payer's expence does not make one a second class citizen.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    it's not a joke, it's very serious. we know scaremongering doesn't work, so there is no point in doing it, there wouldn't be a point in doing it anyway even if it did work. however, it is vital to put across all possibilities and potentials for public consideration, to insure people can make a fully informed choice come referendum day.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    there is no tangible evidence for this claim.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    the outcome is perfectly fine. the unborn's right to life trumps someone's want not to be pregnant.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    yes we do, as we have to. examining all the possibilities and putting forward that information for public consideration is absolutely the right thing to do, even if those possibilities don't happen in the end.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    at risk, meaning any risk of death and she can have an abortion in ireland. it's a good law as abortion should only be availible where medically necessary. outside that, no abortion, put the child up for adoption once born.

    That's every pregnancy.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Delirium wrote: »
    That's every pregnancy.

    of course every pregnancy has risks but death will be one risk that not all of them will have. in terms of the law it's only pregnancies that it is clear are at a risk of causing the mother's death where termination will be allowed.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Saw this posted on Disabled People for Choice facebook page earlier today.
    I was born with a genetic, chronic, incurable condition called Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. It means that my collagen is faulty. Because collagen plays a role in every part of the body I have hundreds of symptoms. These include dislocations at any time, a fainting disorder, a gastrointestinal disorder and cardiac issues. I could continue listing my symptoms but I’d be here all day. Basically, there isn’t a day that doesn’t go by where I am not in constant pain or experiencing some other awful symptom. I’d be lucky to leave the house twice a week.

    From five weeks into my second pregnancy, I was wheelchair bound because every day my pelvis would dislocate. The next 33 weeks were hell. Then, at 38 weeks I was induced due to my waters leaking. After several hours I delivered my beautiful baby girl. I was so relieved the pregnancy was over.

    Then everything started to go black. In and out of consciousness, unable to hold my baby girl, I was haemorrhaging, common in women with my condition. Luckily, just as the midwives called for blood bags, the bleeding slowed.

    The pregnancy didn’t stop the pelvis from dislocating as we had hoped. I continue to have to use my wheelchair if I am out of the house for an extended period of time. If I am not using my chair, I am using my cane or crutches.

    If I get pregnant again, I won’t get out of that wheelchair. I could die.
    Like over half of the people who have travelled for abortion, I am using contraception. But, we all know contraception isn’t 100% effective. We also know how difficult it is to get a tubal ligation in this country and even if I found a doctor to look passed my age and small family, I couldn’t have one because any surgery could potentially kill me or leave me in a worse of state than I already am.

    Let’s say I do get pregnant tomorrow. What will I do? Well, we would have to save €2,000 for an abortion and as me and my husband depend on the state to survive, it would take weeks, possibly months to come up with €2,000 to travel. That's the difference between having a medical abortion and a surgical abortion. Surgical abortion could kill me or disable me further. I was asked recently would I take the abortion pill at home illegally. I answered yes. I would rather risk a 14 year prison sentence than potential death. At least my children can see me in prison and not have to visit a graveyard.

    I know I have a select few family and friends who would help us out if we told them but, what about those of us who don’t have a support network? What would I do if I wasn’t married or had a supportive partner? Because guess what, like others, disabled people also have sex for fun and outside the bonds of commitment!

    Like the 12 women who travel daily, my healthcare is also exported. Travelling for tests is exhausting, causes a flare up of all my symptoms and leaves me in bed for days and days. Sometimes my condition progresses after travel and stress. I couldn't imagine how bad off I'd be if I'd have to travel for a procedure, have to travel back the same day and recover from something like an abortion. I wouldn't be out of bed for weeks. My children wouldn't have their mother to play with.

    With the risk of complications and even death in any surgery I may have, having to leave before I had time to recover some bit for the flight home could leave my kids motherless. Like all the rest of my medical care, abortion needs to be accessible in my own country.

    There is no continuity of care when you travel for abortion. There is no contact between a patient's medical team in Ireland and the team carrying out the abortion in the UK. Which means the gynaecologist/OBGYN may not have all the information they need to properly care for their patient. Since there are thousands of disabilities and even more symptoms and complications that can arise, it would be hard to know of what to be cautious of. Medical history is very important, especially when it comes to surgery. For example, people with Ehlers Danlos Syndrome metabolise drugs differently to the average person.

    The issues go on and complications are not exclusive to Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. So, by the time a person has gathered the funds and have organised a trip out of the country to procure an abortion, they may have passed the point where they can have an abortion through the use of the pill, mifepristone. They will then instead have to undergo a surgical abortion.

    Without a knowledge and background from a patient's multidisciplinary team, things can get dangerous. However, should abortion be allowed in Ireland, teams could communicate and put safeguards into place to prevent any risks to my health and life.

    I have an almost three-year-old daughter. She inherited EDS from me. By age two she has suffered four dislocations. When puberty begins, her condition will worsen. Like me, she'll be high risk if she was to ever get pregnant. At such a young age she is already showing signs that her condition will be worse than what I have experienced. I worry what a pregnancy would do to her. Whatever she decides, I will support but I want her to at least have the right to make an informed decision. I want her to be able to talk about her decision should she choose abortion. I don't want her to feel ashamed and to feel as though she is doing something wrong.
    Nobody has an abortion on a whim or without thought. Nobody puts themselves through something like that for a laugh.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,989 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    volchitsa wrote: »
    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.
    Those words mean a genuine risk, not a large risk. A small risk would suffice if it was genuine.
    A potential risk is not an actual risk, so that would not suffice.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    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.
    Whatever fanciful nonsense their lawyers came up with in their "defence" is irrelevant, because in the end they admitted malpractice or negligence and paid out an undisclosed compensation sum to the husband.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Delirium wrote: »
    Saw this posted on Disabled People for Choice facebook page earlier today.

    i'm sorry for this lady but i think the existing law could be extended to cases like her without having abortion on demand, and that is what should happen.

    i would also have to disagree with her about abortion not being wrong and something one shouldn't be ashamed of.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,658 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    recedite wrote: »
    Those words mean a genuine risk, not a large risk. A small risk would suffice if it was genuine.
    A potential risk is not an actual risk, so that would not suffice.

    Whatever fanciful nonsense their lawyers came up with in their "defence" is irrelevant, because in the end they admitted malpractice or negligence and paid out an undisclosed compensation sum to the husband.

    You cant rewrite a judgment or ignore words because they dont suit you. Real means genuine, substantial means not small.

    Together, that's a long way from "any risk at all".

    And let's not be having any more of this "Oh it was negligence that killed Savita Hallapanavar" because even if negligence was a contributory factor, it's an even simpler fact that if she had been given an abortion when she asked for one, she'd be alive today. The chairman of the investigation into her deathsaid as much, and also said he couldnt understand why we were still only just getting around to fixing the problem five years after her death.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    there is no woman shaming at all. if i was to say exactly what i said about a woman who killed a newborn i would be getting agreement but because it's the unborn it's woman shaming. sorry but complete nonsense.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    i'm sorry for this lady but i think the existing law could be extended to cases like her without having abortion on demand, and that is what should happen.
    How? She basically wants abortion on request, i.e. the possibility to take an abortion pill early in the pregnancy without having to wait until the pregnancy develops to endanger her life.
    i would also have to disagree with her about abortion not being wrong and something one shouldn't be ashamed of.
    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why should she feel ashamed of having an abortion? Seems quite callous to say that she should. The woman would probably die if she gets pregnant and can't afford to travel to England.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Worse she’s now had a child doomed to a life of agony and disability.
    How is a good outcome for either of them? Forcing a woman and child to such a life?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Delirium wrote: »
    How? She basically wants abortion on request, i.e. the possibility to take an abortion pill early in the pregnancy without having to wait until the pregnancy develops to endanger her life.

    i know that is what she wants, however i think cases like hers could be included via the existing law meaning she could still have the abortion as she would be a medically necessary case. it would mean abortion on demand wouldn't be required.
    Delirium wrote: »
    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why should she feel ashamed of having an abortion? Seems quite callous to say that she should. The woman would probably die if she gets pregnant and can't afford to travel to England.

    she is a medical and extreme case so would be exempt from my viewpoint given her life is in danger. i have been clear that abortion should be availible for medically necessary cases.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    if it's woman shaming for suggesting someone who has an abortion on demand is supposed to be ashamed, then it's woman shaming when we suggest that a woman who killed a new born is supposed to be ashamed.
    if we are to follow your conclusion through, the judges in cases where people have killed their children are involved in man and woman shaming when they mention how someone hasn't showed remorse for their actions in the cases where no remorse was shown.
    so not only am i not guilty of woman shaming, but we can safely say your suggestion of woman shaming is nonsense.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    you could argue it but you wouldn't be correct. she would only be able to have the abortion in cases of medical necessity just like anyone else would only be able to have an abortion in a case of medical necessity, so no discrimination.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    You are woman shaming though. Blatantly.

    Why even deny it it’s right there in your posts?

    It’s disruptive to the dialogue and really self destructive of the rest of your points you’re trying to make.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,658 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    if it's woman shaming for suggesting someone who has an abortion on demand is supposed to be ashamed, then it's woman shaming when we suggest that a woman who killed a new born is supposed to be ashamed.
    if we are to follow your conclusion through, the judges in cases where people have killed their children are involved in man and woman shaming when they mention how someone hasn't showed remorse for their actions in the cases where no remorse was shown.
    so not only am i not guilty of woman shaming, but we can safely say your suggestion of woman shaming is nonsense.

    you could argue it but you wouldn't be correct. she would only be able to have the abortion in cases of medical necessity just like anyone else would only be able to have an abortion in a case of medical necessity, so no discrimination.

    You are confusing punishing someone for committing a crime with allowing someone to do something but wanting them to feel ashamed for having done it.

    Do you really think someone who killed a 2-week-old baby should just be told to feel ashamed of themselves? Shouldn't there be an investigation and possibly a trial?

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,508 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    david75 wrote: »
    You are woman shaming though. Blatantly.

    Why even deny it it’s right there in your posts?

    It’s disruptive to the dialogue and really self destructive of the rest of your points you’re trying to make.

    i'm not woman shaming at all. i'm denying it because i'm not guilty of it. i also explained why suggesting woman shaming on the basis of suggesting one should be ashamed for having an abortion on demand just doesn't work.
    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    both the newborn and the fetus are human beings however, each at different stages of development. so my point stacks up.
    there is a difference between shaming and shunning and suggesting someone should be ashamed of their actions.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    You are confusing punishing someone for committing a crime with allowing someone to do something but wanting them to feel ashamed for having done it.

    Do you really think someone who killed a 2-week-old baby should just be told to feel ashamed of themselves? Shouldn't there be an investigation and possibly a trial?

    of course there should be an investigation and trial. my point was that if it's woman shaming to say that someone who has an abortion on demand must be ashamed of their actions, then it's woman shaming to say that someone convicted of killing a newborn must be ashamed.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



Advertisement