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

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

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

volchitsa

So what exactly is your conclusion in terms of Ireland's laws from all that?

Are you really saying it would be acceptable to sedate and force feed a woman who, unlike you - who I am guessing has never been pregnant - found it unbearable to continue a pregnancy after a diagnosis of FFA?

Or section her in a psychiatric hospital for asking for her pregnancy to be terminated because she felt suicidal at the idea of continuing it?

(Both things that the HSE did or tried to do to women in Ireland, based on the 8th amendment. Not for FFA, but since that is not a recognized factor in the law, it could just as easily happen for FFA as for any other reason.)

From my link above :

My physical and mental health was also suffering. My blood pressure had started to rise, and I had begun to show signs of early pre-eclampsia; a condition associated with triploid pregnancies that continue into the third trimester. The condition could develop very rapidly and, depending on its severity, could even be life threatening.

I was, however, told that unless my life was in imminent danger that they could not induce my labour.

Nick Park

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.

What the 8th does is to try to protect the unborn child, by law. And, for the great number of people (both religious and irreligious) who view the unborn child as a human being, it logically follows that sick children deserve the same protection as healthy children.

Basically you are right, and this woman is wrong

In most discussions someone is right and someone is wrong.

And for those of us who have experienced the pain and grief of caring for a severely disabled child, and losing a child, our experience does not automatically mean that we are right in our views.

But I do think we should be treated with respect. Even though I disagree with abortion being legalised in cases like ours, I think a Referendum proposal on such cases, and a respectful debate from both sides, would have been appropriate. But that option has not been granted to us.

What I do find despicable is when those who are pursuing an agenda of abortion on demand try to exploit parents like us to achieve their goals.

Because if your excuse is "Sure she can go to England to terminate", then that is the most cowardly of cop outs.

I've never offered any such excuse. So you can put that red herring back in your pocket.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Or section her in a psychiatric hospital for asking for her pregnancy to be terminated because she felt suicidal at the idea of continuing it?

I think you've got that backward. People are sometimes sectioned when they are suicidal. I make no claims of expertise in psychiatry, but we are told that is sometimes an appropriate treatment for suicidality.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

So what exactly is your conclusion in terms of Ireland's laws from all that?

Are you really saying it would be acceptable to sedate and force feed a woman who, unlike you - who I am guessing has never been pregnant - found it unbearable to continue a pregnancy after a diagnosis of FFA?

Or section her in a psychiatric hospital for asking for her pregnancy to be terminated because she felt suicidal at the idea of continuing it?

(Both things that the HSE did or tried to do to women in Ireland, based on the 8th amendment. Not for FFA, but since that is not a recognized factor in the law, it could just as easily happen for FFA as for any other reason.)

From my link above :

You are now conflating FFA and suicidal ideation in pregnancy ... two hard cases in one.

Dealing with the FFA first, I have already said that I don't personally believe that abortion is any solution ... I can't see how it solves anything to kill the child, rather than allowing it die naturally, if that is what happens ... and in many cases the child won't die anyway.

As its a situation of extremis, many people may be sympathetic to allowing abortion ... but repealing the 8th and introducing abortion on demand for perfectly healthy pregnancies is certainly not the way to address this issue.
Its actually using the undoubted pain of a FFA diagnosis for the people involved (and the natural sympathy of the public for their plight) ... to slip in abortion on demand for perfectly healthy pregnancies, on the back of FFAs.

Moving onto suicide ideation and refusal to eat or drink.
The procedure should be the same whether the woman is pregnant or not ...

Here is the current state of English Statute and Common Law on the matter (and Irish Law will follow suit):-

Quote:-
"The courts have given a wide interpretation to the type of medical
treatment that can be given under Section 63 of the Act to patients
with a Mental Disorder. The case of B -v- Croydon Health Authority
established that feeding could, in certain circumstances, be seen as
a type of medical treatment under Section 63, on the basis that
relieving symptoms of a Mental Disorder was as much a part of the
treatment as relieving the underlying cause of the Mental Disorder.
If, therefore, the food refusal is seen as a symptom of the Mental
Disorder, then the RC may authorise the feeding of the patient
against his will under Section 63 without having regard to the
patient’s capacity. "

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you've got that backward. People are sometimes sectioned when they are suicidal. I make no claims of expertise in psychiatry, but we are told that is sometimes an appropriate treatment for suicidality.

That is what the Mental Health Act is for, though, and the child who was put in a psychiatric ward instead of being given the abortion she asked for as per the POLDPA was not sectioned using the MHA. Which makes Ireland the only country that still uses mental hospitals to lock up its non criminal citizens.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Which makes Ireland the only country that still uses mental hospitals to lock up its non criminal citizens.

Actually, lots of countries use mental hospitals to lock up their non-criminal citizens where they are deemed to be a grave danger to themselves or others.

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

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Suicide is a huge problem, and, having provided pastoral care to both suicidal people and the grieving parents of people who have killed themselves, I want to be very careful how we speak about this subject.

There are psychiatric treatments for suicidality. Removing the immediate circumstances that the patient sees as the cause of their suicidal feelings is not necessarily the appropriate treatment.

A young girl attempted suicide because her boyfriend left her. The boyfriend subsequently restarted the relationship because he was afraid she would do the same again. She later committed suicide because of some devastatingly disappointing exam results.

The 'Protection of Life Act' has (unwisely in my view) made abortion legal where pregnancy is deemed to be the sole cause of suicidality. But, as I understand it, where medical healthcare professionals see pregnancy not to be the sole cause, then they are obligated to treat the patient appropriately.

The fact that this provision was included in the Protection of Life Act (presumably with the connivance of lawyers who had their fingers crossed and were squinting through one eye when they read the Constitution) demonstrates that the Oireachtas are not to be trusted with the unlimited powers to legislate for abortion that they are seeking in the forthcoming Referendum.

It seems to me to be damaging to teach people that threatening to kill yourself allows you to commit an act that would otherwise be illegal. Promoting such a mindset could easily cause an increase, not a decrease, in suicide.

We have a huge problem with our approach to the value of life. This is a societal issue, not a religious issue. We often fail to appreciate the value of our own lives as well as the lives of others. That problem is reflected in our attitudes to the lives of unborn children, in our unacceptably high suicide rates, and to the increasingly widespread view that someone with a disability would be better off not being born at all.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not necessarily ... if the person is suffering from suicide ideation this might well continue after an abortion ... or might even be exacerbated by one.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In extermis, where somebody is a danger to themselves or others because of their mental state ... sectioning is essential as an initial action to address and treat their illness.

....... wrote: »

And will probably have long term effects on both their mental and physical health. You can add to that that being put under that kind of stress in pregnancy is not a good environment in which to develop a baby. So no good outcome for anyone.

... an unborn child in a stressful pregnancy will obviously always be better off than if it killed.

Sounds like a council of despair to me.

In any event, these situations are extremely rare ... and abortion is already allowed where someone is suicidal ... and the pregnanacy is the sole reason for the ideation.

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually, lots of countries use mental hospitals to lock up their non-criminal citizens where they are deemed to be a grave danger to themselves or others.

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

Did you miss what I said about the Mental Health Act?

The problem is putting a subsection about suicidal ideation in a law which is not part of any MHA and then using that to lock someone up as though that made it legal. It doesn't.

The MHA and its equivalent in other countries is there for a reason, to prevent people being abusively locked up. The POLDPA has been used to bypass that safety mechanism, allowing a pregnant woman to be locked up because she has asked for an abortion, not because the MHA has had to be invoked.

.......

This post has been deleted.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I stated that "many of these so-called FFAs aren't fatal at all".
Obviously, Anencephaly is fatal soon after birth ... but many other FFAs aren't invariably fatal.

In fact, I can't think of any other FFA that is invariably fatal, other than Anencephaly.

In this regard we need to bear in mind that the Citizen's Assembly voted by an incredible 69% to allow abortions with no gestational limit for situations where "the unborn child has a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth."

... so there is every reason to believe that this will be enshrined in law if the 8th is repealed.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Did you miss what I said about the Mental Health Act?

The problem is putting a subsection about suicidal ideation in a law which is not part of any MHA and then using that to lock someone up as though that made it legal. It doesn't.

The MHA and its equivalent in other countries is there for a reason, to prevent people being abusively locked up. The POLDPA has been used to bypass that safety mechanism, allowing a pregnant woman to be locked up because she has asked for an abortion, not because the MHA has had to be invoked.

The MHA would also still apply if somebody was detained for mental health reasons under the POLDPA.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

The MHA would also still apply if somebody was detained for mental health reasons under the POLDPA.

Not true. You're just making stuff up now.

What article in the POLDPA allows for women to be sectioned instead of getting an abortion?
Or makes a link that invokes the MHA in case of refusal of an abortion?

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

not having the means to care for a child is no reason to kill the unborn. we have systems in place to help people care for children, and as imperfect as they are, improving them would bring benefits unlike abortion on demand, which brings no benefits.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Not true. You're just making stuff up now.

What article in the POLDPA allows for women to be sectioned instead of getting an abortion?
Or makes a link that invokes the MHA in case of refusal of an abortion?

Maybe you are the one who is making stuff up?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111

The sequence of events here is quite clear.
1. The girl wanted an abortion on the grounds that she was suicidal.
2. The first psychiatrist to see her decided that she did not meet the criteria under the Protection of Life Act, namely that her suicidal feelings could only be averted by an abortion.
3. Therefore the psychiatrist proceeded to apply what he felt was appropriate treatment for her suicidality. That involved sectioning her under the Mental Health act.
4. Subsequently another psychiatrist disagreed with the diagnosis of the first psychiatrist.

The girl was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, not the Protection of Life Act.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Did you miss what I said about the Mental Health Act?

The problem is putting a subsection about suicidal ideation in a law which is not part of any MHA and then using that to lock someone up as though that made it legal. It doesn't.

The MHA and its equivalent in other countries is there for a reason, to prevent people being abusively locked up. The POLDPA has been used to bypass that safety mechanism, allowing a pregnant woman to be locked up because she has asked for an abortion, not because the MHA has had to be invoked.

To help us follow your reasoning here, could you link to a case where someone was sectioned under the POLDPA rather than the MHA?

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

To help us follow your reasoning here, could you link to a case where someone was sectioned under the POLDPA rather than the MHA?

Well, we were told by psychiatrists before the POLDPA was passed that this could not happen, so to that extent, no.

But the case of the child who was put in a psychiatric hospital instead of being given an abortion is not one where the MHA was able to be invoked, because as the link given above (the one supposed to prove me wrong!) says, she had no mental illness and therefore could mot be detained legally under the MHA.

As the young girl did not have a mental illness she could not be detained under the Mental Heath Act. The consultant psychiatrist also reported that the young girl had very strong views as to why she wanted a termination of her pregnancy.”

But was still locked up until her GAL (guardian ad litam) insisted she see another psychiatrist. Luckily for her. If the GAL who was named had been prolife, she may well have been kept in and we may never have heard of the case.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, we were told by psychiatrists before the POLDPA was passed that this could not happen, so to that extent, no.

So you claimed that people are being locked up under the POLDPA rather than the MHA. But you can't link to a case where that has happened.

You also claimed that other countries don't use mental hospitals to lock up their non-criminal citizens. That was not true.

But you accuse JC of making things up?

But the case of the child who was put in a psychiatric hospital instead of being given an abortion is not one where the MHA was able to be invoked, because as the link given above (the one supposed to prove me wrong!) says, she had no mental illness and therefore could mot be detained legally under the MHA.

I suggest you try reading the link more carefully.

It states that the first psychiatrist did indeed invoke the MHA. Then, subsequently, another psychiatrist disagreed and said that the MHA should not have been invoked. Irrespective of which psychiatrist we might think was correct, the fact remains that she was sectioned under the MHA.

david75

Can’t leave yis alone for a minute!

hope you’re all safe and prepared for this weather.

david75

I think the mental health / suicide risk is a totally unnecessary sideshow tbh.
At one point it was going to be the only way an abortion would be allowed is if the woman had suicidal thoughts correct?
Ridiculous basis for any legislation and easily manipulated. It’s probably only much much younger girls would genuinely have suicidal ideation in this scenario and then in tiny numbers compared to the thousands of women a year that go for abortion. Can only hope there are effective supports there for them that are going through it.
Going forward I can’t see any psychiatrist going against the patients wishes on this one. Would be a nightmare for them if the girl took her own life leading to all sorts of inquiry and investigation. ‘She asked for the abortion and told you she was suicidal. And you said no. Now she’s gone and killed herself. L’

None of us want that do we? I don’t.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

not having a means is not a good reason to kill the unborn. we don't allow the killing of the born because parents find themselves for whatever reason, with little to no means to take care of the children, and rightly so.
abortion is not termination of pregnancy, it's the killing of the unborn.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and i have completely agreed with it and have stated the services must be improved. thankfully the services and systems can be improved. you can't undo the killing of the unborn however, and that is why there is no requirement or need for it in ireland.

david75

Even the head honcho Catholic is good at sabotaging his own position it seems.
What is with us??? Is it just a Catholic thing to self destruct our own argument?

‘Pope says it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian’

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/index.html

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

So you claimed that people are being locked up under the POLDPA rather than the MHA. But you can't link to a case where that has happened.

You also claimed that other countries don't use mental hospitals to lock up their non-criminal citizens. That was not true.

But you accuse JC of making things up?

I suggest you try reading the link more carefully.

It states that the first psychiatrist did indeed invoke the MHA. Then, subsequently, another psychiatrist disagreed and said that the MHA should not have been invoked. Irrespective of which psychiatrist we might think was correct, the fact remains that she was sectioned under the MHA.

Sectioned abusively though. Which I think I said earlier.

You seem to think a psychiatrist announcing that he is using the MHA makes him entitled to use it. But it doesn't, it's very strictly limited, and the girl did not fill the criteria. For one thing, she did not have an identifiable mental illness.

volchitsa

david75 wrote: »

I think the mental health / suicide risk is a totally unnecessary sideshow tbh.
At one point it was going to be the only way an abortion would be allowed is if the woman had suicidal thoughts correct?
Ridiculous basis for any legislation and easily manipulated. It’s probably only much much younger girls would genuinely have suicidal ideation in this scenario and then in tiny numbers compared to the thousands of women a year that go for abortion. Can only hope there are effective supports there for them that are going through it.
Going forward I can’t see any psychiatrist going against the patients wishes on this one. Would be a nightmare for them if the girl took her own life leading to all sorts of inquiry and investigation. ‘She asked for the abortion and told you she was suicidal. And you said no. Now she’s gone and killed herself. L’

None of us want that do we? I don’t.

That of course was the claim that prolifers made against the POLDPA, that it would inevitably lead to abortion on demand, for the reasons you give. In reality, it has led to a handful of abortions, one or two a year IIRC, and the abuse of the law has been by HSE and/or prolife paychiatrists refusing to allow suicidal women and girls an abortion on those grounds and instead using that against them as a threat to have them sectioned. And in at least one case, doing so.

Nick Park

david75 wrote: »

Even the head honcho Catholic is good at sabotaging his own position it seems.
What is with us??? Is it just a Catholic thing to self destruct our own argument?

‘Pope says it's better to be an atheist than a bad Christian’

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/world/pope-atheists-again/index.html

Not sure what this has to do with abortion?

I'm not a Catholic, but I think the Pope is talking good sense here. Hypocritical nominal Christians are a real pain in the backside. On the other hand, I know a number of atheists who are gracious and people of integrity.