Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Legislation should have been passed implementing the 8th amendment long before 2013 ... to clarify exactly when and where abortion is allowed ... and when it isn't.
This wasn't done until 2013 and it was a serious omission that it wasn't.

In relation to treatment for a mothers health condition, there is no restriction on such treatment, even where an unborn child dies as a result of such treatment ... what is not allowed is that the unborn child be killed directly and/or before treatment commences.
Of course, if the woman's health issues are at a point where they are threatening her life, an abortion can be carried out.
All very civilised and with maximum concern and care for both the mother and her baby.

What isn't allowed currently ... is where a woman and her partner simply wants rid of the baby i.e. abortion on demand ... and for no reason.
This is what that the removal of the 8th is actually all about ... and this is proven to be the case, by the proposal for abortion on demand to immediately follow the repeal of the 8th.

If the 8th is repealed and abortion on demand is introduced ... there will be absolute legal protection for frog spawn in Ireland ... and no legal protection for unborn Human Beings up to 12 weeks.

This is the situation in most European countries ... you can kill your unborn child with impunity ... but if you were to harm of kill wildlife ... its off to jail with a good finger-wagging from the very pseudo-liberals who are pro-abortion.

I'm not saying that wildlife shouldn't be protected ... merely that Human Beings deserve at least the same protection under law ... as frog spawn.
Not a lot to ask ... is it?

david75 wrote: »

Listen to yourself. And do some reading. Women with FFA on the cards are still having to travel for abortion. Unless you support forcing them to give birth to a baby that won’t survive?
Have all the facts before you make such statements will you?

The FFA is not at all as simple as you are portraying it ... very much the reverse, in fact.

Quote (Irish Times):-
"UN bodies clash over abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities
Disability committee says no guarantee whether impairments are fatal or not

Two influential United Nations bodies have disagreed sharply over whether abortion should be allowed in countries such as Ireland in cases where there are fatal foetal abnormalities.

The UN’s Human Rights Committee has for years argued that women should have access to abortion in all cases where the “foetus suffers from fatal impairment”.

However, the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has recently objected to this view, in a paper replying to a list of recommendations made by its sister UN body.

Objecting to “fatal foetal impairments” being used as a specific ground for abortion, the disability committee said such an approach was risky given there was no guarantee as to whether or not a foetal abnormality was fatal.

“Even if the condition is considered fatal, there is still a decision made on the basis of impairment. Often it cannot be said if an impairment is fatal. Experience shows that assessments on impairment conditions are often false,” the committee stated."

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/un-bodies-clash-over-abortion-in-cases-of-fatal-foetal-abnormalities-1.3270579

I know a woman personally who was told that one of her unborn twins had a fatal heart problem and wouldn't survive birth and could die in utero ... and she was told to go to England for a selective abortion ... to ensure that her other unborn child wouldn't be put at risk ... the ultimate FFA story.
She didn't accept the advice and proceeded with her pregnancy and she now has two healthy twins, all be it that one had to have some heart surgery, when it reached a target weight, after it was born.
Can you imagine the 'survivor guilt' that the other twin would have had, if she was told that her sister was killed because she had a 'fatal' heart problem.
... yes, they are two healthy beautiful young girls now ... who are inseparable.

... so FFA is actually an argument for the retention of the 8th ... and not its repeal.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And not a single thought for the parents who have to watch this.

I said that "even with anencephaly, many parents, who bring the child to term get great comfort from holding and caring for their child when it is born ... and during the precious few hours or even days, before the child dies."
Most parents want to spend whatever time they have got with their little one ... and find considerable comfort in doing so ... and that is when the FFA is actually fatal.
Many so called FFA are not actually fatal at all, like the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has recently pointed out.
They said that using "fatal foetal impairments” as a specific ground for abortion, was risky "given there was no guarantee as to whether or not a foetal abnormality was fatal."

The big secret with so-called 'Fatal Foetal Abnormalities' ... is that many aren't actually fatal.
What is happening is that anencephaly, which is fatal within hours/days of birth is being highligted as an FFA ... and all sorts of other conditions (including perfectly operable heart conditions) are being included as FFA ... when they are possibly neither fatal nor even permanent, in some cases.

Humanity is important ... when it comes to matters of life and death ... particularly where children are involved ... it is never good to kill them, irrespective of the condition they are suffering from.

volchitsa wrote: »

But the 8th is not about allowing, or even encouraging, families with such a diagnosis to choose to continue the pregnancy, that can be done without the 8th existing.

What the 8th does is try to force people into continuing the pregnancy. By law.

Basically you are right, and this woman is wrong : http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/diary-of-losing-a-baby-1930048-Feb2015/

Firstly, it is terrible beyond words for parents to be faced with a diagnosis of serious abnormality in their unborn child.
However, I disagree that abortion is the solution.

I note in the above case that the diagnosis was Downes Syndrome and cystic hygroma.
Quote:-
"Day 9. Just before lunch, I got the results. The midwife said she was sorry but that my baby had T21 (Down Syndrome). She explained what he could be born with but added that the cystic hygroma meant he might not survive until full-term."

The following is the treatment for cystic hygroma:-
Quote Wikpedia:-
"Newborn infant with a cystic hygroma visible on right side of the neck
A baby with a prenatally diagnosed cystic hygroma should be delivered in a major medical center equipped to deal with neonatal complications, such as a neonatal intensive care unit. An obstetrician usually decides the method of delivery. If the cystic hygroma is large, a cesarean section may be performed. After birth, infants with a persistent cystic hygroma must be monitored for airway obstruction. A thin needle may be used to reduce the volume of the cystic hygroma to prevent facial deformities and airway obstruction. Close observation of the baby by a neonatologist after birth is recommended. If resolution of the cystic hygroma does not occur before birth, a pediatric surgeon should be consulted.

I can empathise totally with these parents in the terrible dilemma they found themselves in ...
Quote:-
"I was so stressed. I didn’t want to be here. I would rather end my own life than to have to end my baby’s. Nobody could help us. We had nobody in the same position to talk to. I researched more and more. I tried to read medical journals, tried to find positive outcomes for babies with fluid over 8.

I had to start thinking with my head, rather than my heart. Something we badly wanted and was so precious to us was going to be taken away from us, whatever we decided.

I was also told that when he passed away, depending on how far into pregnancy it is, I would not be able to deliver him. It would have to be a C-section as the malformations on his head, neck and back wouldn’t allow a natural birth.

I chopped and changed my mind so many times. How could I go through with this? The thought made me physically sick. But I wouldn’t do this to my animals… how could I do it to my own baby? I read that they could feel pain somewhere between 20 and 24 weeks. I didn’t want to do that either.

After many debates, mind changes, tears and pain, I knew I had to do this to be kind to my unborn child. Why should he suffer? It would be a pain I would forever have to live with. As the mother, it’s you who feels him kick morning and night."

This woman was literally 'up the walls' with worry and had nobody to look to for advice ... and I can empathise totally with her and her partner in the horrenduous situation, they found themselves in.

Nobody is saying that these are easy decisions ... there may even be no 'wrong' answer, in many of these cases ... but like Nick Park has said ... even if abortion is to be allowed in these circumstances, repealing the 8th and introducing abortion on demand for perfectly healthy babies isn't the way to go.