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.

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 so there is every reason to believe that this will be enshrined in law if the 8th is repealed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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. "

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.

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.

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.

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

.......

This post has been deleted.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

My question was where the 8th comes into that.

Forcing women who may be finding it psychologically unbearable to continue waking up every morning wondering if their baby has died during the night to go on for weeks or months has nothing to do with caring for women.

Any baby can die in utero, even if apparently healthy ... there is a risk of death for everything that is alive ... and many of these so-called FFAs aren't fatal at all.

I also don't get how a woman who is finding it "psychologically unbearable to continue waking up every morning wondering if their baby has died during the night" ... should kill it ... thereby ensuring that it dies ... when it more than likely wouldn't die at all, if it isn't aborted.

Is your argument what it seems to be ?
... that somebody has a sick child ... and they are seriously worried that it might die ... so they should kill it, in order to stop worrying that it might die.
This would certainly be a situation where the so-called 'cure' ... would be much worse than the 'disease' ... for the child anyway.

We need to live in hope ... and give life a chance ... its amazing how tenaceous life can be.

J C

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.

volchitsa

My question was where the 8th comes into that.

Forcing women who may be finding it psychologically unbearable to continue waking up every morning wondering if their baby has died during the night to go on for weeks or months has nothing to do with caring for women.

J C

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

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually there isn't a contradiction. I know plenty of people who would support the 8th Amendment being amended to permit abortion in the comparatively few cases of so-called FFA or rape. But they can't support straightforward repeal because it would inevitably result in a much larger number of abortions where such circumstances do not apply.

For what it's worth, having being the parent of a child with a so-called FFA (who actually lived over 4 years after birth), I support keeping the 8th as it is.

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/

Or this woman : https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/my-daughter-was-dying-inside-me-i-could-not-save-her-1.3137930

And if the HSE were able to do what they wanted to do to Ms Y, sedate and force feed her, that would be fair enough to do to these women too?

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

Nick Park

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

Disgusting comment from you!

I'm one of those parents. I don't find JC's comment disgusting at all.

I am, however, disgusted by those who wish to exploit cases like my daughters to push their agenda of abortion on demand.

Nick Park

david75 wrote: »

The contradiction within that post alone on your position isn’t particular to you.
But it does show a glaring gap in understanding. You’re happy to deal with more suffering in order to force babies to be born that cannot live and force their mothers to suffer further by having to travel or not being able to afford to, force the marriage to give birth here and watch the baby die. Painfully. For both mother and child.

That’s not chirstian. That’s totally inhuman.

Actually there isn't a contradiction. I know plenty of people who would support the 8th Amendment being amended to permit abortion in the comparatively few cases of so-called FFA or rape. But they can't support straightforward repeal because it would inevitably result in a much larger number of abortions where such circumstances do not apply.

For what it's worth, having being the parent of a child with a so-called FFA (who actually lived over 4 years after birth), I support keeping the 8th as it is.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

These children don't die painfully ... in fact many survive ... and go on to live normal lives, if the advice to abort is ignored ... and the ones who do die ... simply 'slip away' to be with God.

What is inhuman is to kill these most vulnerable of the most vulnerable ... for no good reason, actually.
... but then abortion on demand of healthy children is also proposed ... for no good reason as well.
... and the repeal of the 8th is also proposed for no good reason.

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

Disgusting comment from you!

J C

david75 wrote: »

The contradiction within that post alone on your position isn’t particular to you.
But it does show a glaring gap in understanding. You’re happy to deal with more suffering in order to force babies to be born that cannot live and force their mothers to suffer further by having to travel or not being able to afford to, force the marriage to give birth here and watch the baby die. Painfully. For both mother and child.

That’s not chirstian. That’s totally inhuman.

These children don't die painfully ... in fact many survive ... and go on to live normal lives, if the advice to abort is ignored ... and the ones who do die ... simply 'slip away' to be with God.

What is inhuman is to kill these most vulnerable of the most vulnerable ... for no good reason, actually.
... but then abortion on demand of healthy children is also proposed ... for no good reason as well.
... and the repeal of the 8th is also proposed for no good reason.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

and i agree that in some ways it isn't fit for purpose. however, it does currently protect the unborn's right to life, and given the proposals on the table to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, i have no option but to vote no to repeal as i couldn't vote for anything that will allow abortion on demand in ireland.

The contradiction within that post alone on your position isn’t particular to you.
But it does show a glaring gap in understanding. You’re happy to deal with more suffering in order to force babies to be born that cannot live and force their mothers to suffer further by having to travel or not being able to afford to, force the marriage to give birth here and watch the baby die. Painfully. For both mother and child.

That’s not chirstian. That’s totally inhuman.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Every article and actual factual evidence out there says the 8th hurts those you claim to support aka ‘extreme cases’. *this is why we’re having the referendum. The 8th is not fit for purpose*

Yet you’re voting to keep it. Laughable.

Many of the arguments of the pro-abortion lobby are 'bait and switch' arguments ... FFA is one of them ... anencephaly is the main FFA cited ... but FFA encompasses a whole host of undefined conditions ... many of which turn out to be not fatal ... or not even disabling ... if the advice to abort is ignored.
... and 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 hours or even days, before the child dies.

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.
Like I have said ... death will find us all ... but there is no need to give death a helping hand in doing so.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Every article and actual factual evidence out there says the 8th hurts those you claim to support aka ‘extreme cases’. *this is why we’re having the referendum. The 8th is not fit for purpose*

Yet you’re voting to keep it. Laughable.

and i agree that in some ways it isn't fit for purpose. however, it does currently protect the unborn's right to life, and given the proposals on the table to allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, i have no option but to vote no to repeal as i couldn't vote for anything that will allow abortion on demand in ireland.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

i have all the facts. hence being happy with the decisian i have made in terms of how i'm going to vote. i have stated plenty of times that FFA is a case where abortion should be permitted, but i believe this can be allowed via the existing law, hence i won't be voting for repeal in an aim to allow abortion in the circumstances where i believe it must be provided.

Every article and actual factual evidence out there says the 8th hurts those you claim to support aka ‘extreme cases’. *this is why we’re having the referendum. The 8th is not fit for purpose*

Yet you’re voting to keep it. Laughable.

J C

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.

end of the road

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?

i have all the facts. hence being happy with the decisian i have made in terms of how i'm going to vote. i have stated plenty of times that FFA is a case where abortion should be permitted, but i believe this can be allowed via the existing law, hence i won't be voting for repeal in an aim to allow abortion in the circumstances where i believe it must be provided.