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.

There is no 'slippery sloap' just a massive vertical drop ... with the proposed repeal of the 8th.

....... wrote: »

Yes- I already explained that to you. However in practice locking a woman up instead of giving her an abortion has happened.

... and she is now the happy mother of a beautiful baby ... what is wrong with that?

....... wrote: »

Depends. You wouldnt have an abortion at 8 months if the child was viable, you would deliver it by inducement or C section.

... this isn't what happens in other countries ... late abortions kill the child, in these countries ... and the only thing mandating Caesarians instead of late abortions in Ireland, is the requirement of the 8th to 'to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable'.
This will disappear if the 8th is repealed ... and anybody voting for it, will be voting for the killing of 6 to 9 month unborn babies in late abortions, instead of saving them with a Caesarian.

....... wrote: »

The three cases are meant to cover emergency situations where only one life can be saved.

The POLDPA covers emergency situations up to term, at 9 months ... and both lives can be saved after 6 months ... but, this will only happen if the 8th isn't repealed.

....... wrote: »

The protection should be removed because it causes medical uncertainty and women die because of it.

The protection should be retained, because it is saving viable unborn children ... and it has no effect on the mother, whether her viable unborn baby is delivered via Caesarian .. or is killed via a late abortion.

Common Human Decency demand that viable unborn children should not be killed ... but just like Common Sense ... Common Human Decency ... is sometimes, not that common at all.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

"Wrongly" matters here, because she did fit the criteria for an abortion (suicidal because of her pregnancy) and was not asking for any treatment under MHA.
The psychiatrist agreed that she fulfilled the criteria for PLDPA, but then, instead of applying POLDPA he went off on a solo run and misapplied an entirely separate act, for which she needed to be both suicidal and diagnosed with a specific mental illness.

He also failed to inform her family, which as she was a minor he was obliged to do, never mind getting parental consent. Yet at the same time he used her mother to take her to the unit where she was interned, allowing the woman to believe thqt she was taking her daughter for an abortion.

Those are all very serious breaches of MHA and the rules governing when someone's liberty may legally be removed from them. So serious that a psychiatrist asked about whether this sequence of events could potentially happen said it would simply not be possible.

So in effect, she asked for POLDP to be invoked, she fulfilled the criteria, but instead, in a catch 22 which is not going to be found legal if she takes the HSE to court, she was interned under a different law for which she did not fulfill the criteria.

This is about the third time I've pointed this out, but if necessary I shall keep on doing so for as long as posters rewrite reality and the law to suit their own desires.

she didn't fit the criteria for an abortion because it could not be proved that she was suicidal because she was pregnant and it could not be proved that an abortion would change her feelings. therefore the psychiatrist felt that sectioning her was the best thing for her so she could be treated and given the help and support she needed and deserved. the psychiatrist wanted to help her and did what he thought was best. was he wrong, maybe he was maybe he wasn't. but i believe he did what he felt was best for her.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

she didn't fit the criteria for an abortion because it could not be proved that she was suicidal because she was pregnant and it could not be proved that an abortion would change her feelings. therefore the psychiatrist felt that sectioning her was the best thing for her so she could be treated and given the help and support she needed and deserved. the psychiatrist wanted to help her and did what he thought was best. was he wrong, maybe he was maybe he wasn't. but i believe he did what he felt was best for her.

You seem very sure. What evidence do you have for this, seeing as the psychiatrist accepted that girl herself was adamant that her problem was that she needed an abortion and she was clear about her reasons?

What evidence would be needed exactly? Or are you saying that nobody can ever prove this, so that any woman who requests an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA is liable to find themselves sectioned instead!?

david75

Nick Park wrote: »

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.

Look at the thread title.
We all here in this thread spoke at length about whether Christians can vote for abortion and the fact the majority of people in Ireland are Christians yet in name only and no longer subscribed to the church and have completely amputated faith in their decision making as well as amputating the church from telling them how to think and how to vote.

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

Look at the thread title.
We all here in this thread spoke at length about whether Christians can vote for abortion and the fact the majority of people in Ireland are Christians yet in name only and no longer subscribed to the church and have completely amputated faith in their decision making as well as amputating the church from telling them how to think and how to vote.

What church are you referring to here? I assume the RCC!

david75

Biting down in my sarcasm reaction.

Who else ?

J C

david75 wrote: »

Look at the thread title.
We all here in this thread spoke at length about whether Christians can vote for abortion and the fact the majority of people in Ireland are Christians yet in name only and no longer subscribed to the church and have completely amputated faith in their decision making as well as amputating the church from telling them how to think and how to vote.

Whilst many Roman Catholics may be alienated from their church, because of various issues, it would be a mistake to conclude that they have amputated Christian faith in their decision making ... or to believe that they have ceased to be Christians.
In any event, common human decency demands that we don't approve the killing of viable unborn children with no gestational limit, where a mothers life is at risk, when delivery by caesarian is the obviuos option.
Repealing the 8th will allow this, by removing the requirement in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 for doctors 'to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable'.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem very sure. What evidence do you have for this, seeing as the psychiatrist accepted that girl herself was adamant that her problem was that she needed an abortion and she was clear about her reasons?

What evidence would be needed exactly? Or are you saying that nobody can ever prove this, so that any woman who requests an abortion under section 9 of POLDPA is liable to find themselves sectioned instead!?

Using suicide ideation, where this doesn't exist just to 'get rid of' a pregnancy would be an abuse of the Act ... and that is why two psychiatrists and a medical doctor must certify that :-
"(i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of
suicide, and
(ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure."

If the psychiatrists conclude that the woman is mentally ill, and a serious risk to herself, they may section her. That is an obvious possibility, once somebody (pregnant or otherwise) declares themselves to be suicidal and a psychiatrist examines them.
The key issue is that she may still be aborted while sectioned under the POLDPA ... if it is concluded that her illness is solely due to her being pregnant and if the pregnancy is at a stage where the unborn child isn't viable.
A caesarian may be used if the pregnancy is at the stage of viability.

I would therefore separate the issue of sectioning from the abortion issue ... and conflating them with 'over the top' emotionalism like 'locking up the pregnant woman' and 'forcing her to have a caesarian' is scaremongering ... and a gross and unwarranted insult to the dedicated medical professionals who are trying to give the best medical care to the mother (and her child), in the circumstances they find themselves.

.......

This post has been deleted.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then why is there not a gestational age limit of say 22 week, after which, delivery by Caesarian is mandated? The reason is because abortions are performed after 22 weeks.

....... wrote: »

You really seem to have the lowest opinion of people possible. Do you really think it is the 8th that prevents total anarchy?

In a word, Yes.

It is estimated that there are over a quarter of a million Irish people alive today, who would't be, if the 8th wasn't there ... I'd call that anarchy, without the 8th.

Specifically in relation to late abortion, it is happening in many other countries ... and the only abortion law currently on Irish Statute Books, allows abortion without any gestational age restriction, as well!!

Clearly, abortions are performed after viability ... and the unborn child is killed in utero, because it is potentially viable ... and aborting it without killing it first, runs the risk of having to care for it if it is born alive ... see first quote below.

Quotes from Wikpeadia on late abortion:-
"The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstericss states that abortions "after 22 weeks [gestation] must be preceded by feticide." If medical staff observe signs of life, they may be required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not."

"Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.
In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year."

"In 2015, 2,877 abortions were performed at 20 weeks or above (in Engalnd and Wales). Of these, 23 (0.8%) were performed to save the life of the pregnant woman, 1,801 (63%) were performed for mental or physical health reasons, and 1,046 (36%) were performed because of foetal abnormalities. "

"The ease with which the doctor or the committee allows a late term abortion varies significantly by country, and is often influenced by the social and religious views prevalent in that region.

Some countries, like Canada, China (Mainland only) and Vietnam have no legal limit on when an abortion can be performed."

.... so when legally madated, doctors can and do perform late abortions beyond viability.

Indeed, the fact that one of reasons cited for the repeal of the 8th is the 'restriction' it places on abortions under the PLDPA, tells us that late abortions will be carried out, if the 8th is repealed. The 'restriction' is the requirement ''to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable'. This doesn't allow feticide, where the baby is viable ... but this will be allowed, if the 8th is repealed ... because the unborn will have no constitutionally protected rights ... if the 8th is repealed.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/the-unborn-will-have-no-constitutional-rights-if-eighth-amendment-repealed-court-told-36632042.html

david75

TBh JC and I don’t have a crystal ball or anything but I know that will never happen here. Ever. I think you’re probably worrying about the wrong thing in this regard.

.......

This post has been deleted.

J C

david75 wrote: »

TBh JC and I don’t have a crystal ball or anything but I know that will never happen here. Ever. I think you’re probably worrying about the wrong thing in this regard.

How do you know, David, that late abortions will never happen in Ireland, if the 8th is removed? ... what makes Ireland so special in this regard?

You don't need a crystal ball to predict that abortion without gestational age limits will occur, if the 8th is repealed.

Firstly, abortion without gestational age limits is already on our Statute Books ... and the only thing preventing late abortions being carried out is the requirement in the PLDPA for ''to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable" ... which is taken directly from the 8th ... and this will automatically fall, if the 8th is repealed.

Secondly, we already know from international experience, cited in my pervious post, that doctors will do late abortions, once the law allows them to do so.

Indeed the International Federation of Gynecology and Obsterics gives detailed advice to doctors on how best to perform late abortions ... and they wouldn't be doing so, if they weren't being performed.
They Quote:-
"state that abortions "after 22 weeks [gestation] must be preceded by feticide." If medical staff observe signs of life, they may be required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not."

david75

J C wrote: »

You don't need a crystal ball to predict that abortion without gestational age limits will occur if the 8th is repealed.

Abortion without gestational age limits is already on our Statute Books ... and the only thing preventing late abortions being carried out is the requirement in the PLDPA for ''to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable" ... which is taken directly from the 8th ... and will fall if the 8th is repealed.

It would only ever be undertaken in severe life threatening situations though.
It will never ever be available as an option simply because a woman feels like it.

That’s a huge distinction and a leap of such magnitude that Irish legislation and Irish people would never support.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you not happy with JC's points? By all means debate against them, but when he quotes from a wiki article, which is based entirely on reality, don't try to dismiss him as insane.
interesting to see the stats there for late term abortion from the kind of "western liberal" countries that are being held up as shining examples of what we should aspire to be. The leader there appears to be Canada, with a shocking 2% of abortions occurring after 21 weeks. At that age, the "choice" is between feticide or putting them in an incubator.
Canada a country that decided to go ultra-liberal on the whole issue, get rid of all legal protection for the unborn, and hand it entirely over to "medical ethics".

That allows the legislators to concentrate on much more important matters as gender-neutering their national anthem.

.......

This post has been deleted.

david75

Nobody should use Wikipedia as a reference or source.
It’s banned in colleges as reference as its open to editing from anyone
It’s not acceptable as verified information anywhere.
When was the last time you saw a trusted news outlet use wiki as a ‘source’ on anything other than its crazy founders legal hassles?

volchitsa

david75 wrote: »

It would only ever be undertaken in severe life threatening situations though.
It will never ever be available as an option simply because a woman feels like it.

That’s a huge distinction and a leap of such magnitude that Irish legislation and Irish people would never support.

The idea that a woman would choose to go through the first, often very difficult, months of pregnancy with nausea and breast pain and all sorts of other unpleasant first trimester symptoms, followed by the 2nd trimester with fewer symptoms but still "just" ligament pain and daytime sleepiness alternating with nighttime insomnia etc etc, and then after six months or more of all that finally decide that she has had enough and doesnt want a baby after all is just so unrealistic that someone who claims to fear this must be either seriously misled about pregnancy or is simply lying.

And that is without the issue of finding a doctor who would be prepared to carry out an abortion "just because". It just doesn't happen, in those countries where women actually can terminate early pregnancies.

Where it does happen is Ireland. Because it's not enough to be in despair over a pregnancy, the woman has to wait to become certifiably suicidal. And then she may well be "hospitalized" instead. Ask Ms Y and the child who was sectioned.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Nobody should use Wikipedia as a reference or source.
It’s banned in colleges as reference as its open to editing from anyone
It’s not acceptable as verified information anywhere.
When was the last time you saw a trusted news outlet use wiki as a ‘source’ on anything other than its crazy founders legal hassles?

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Wicki ... the quote I got from Wicki was also fully referenced

Quote:-
The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstericss states that abortions "after 22 weeks [gestation] must be preceded by feticide."[41]

Reference:-
[41] "FIGO (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics) Committee Report: Ethical aspects concerning termination of pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis". International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 102 (102): 97–98. 2008. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2008.03.002. PMID 18423641. Termination of pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis after 22 weeks must be preceded by a feticide

Quote:-If medical staff observe signs of life, they may be required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not.[42][43][44]

References :-
[42] Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007). "Critical care decisions in fetal and neonatal medicine: a guide to the report" (PDF). Retrieved 29 October 2015. Under English law, fetuses have no independent legal status. Once born, babies have the same rights to life as other people.

[43] Gerri R. Baer; Robert M. Nelson (2007). "Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention. C: A Review of Ethical Issues Involved in Premature Birth". Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Understanding Premature Birth and Assuring Healthy Outcomes;. In 2002, the 107th U.S. Congress passed the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001. This law established personhood for all infants who are born “at any stage of development” who breathe, have a heartbeat, or “definite movement of voluntary muscles,” regardless of whether the birth was due to labor or induced abortion.

[44] Chabot, Steve (5 August 2002). "H.R. 2175 (107th): Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002". govtrack.us. Retrieved 30 October 2015. The term ``born alive is defined as the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of the voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

Are you not happy with JC's points? By all means debate against them, but when he quotes from a wiki article, which is based entirely on reality, don't try to dismiss him as insane.
interesting to see the stats there for late term abortion from the kind of "western liberal" countries that are being held up as shining examples of what we should aspire to be. The leader there appears to be Canada, with a shocking 2% of abortions occurring after 21 weeks. At that age, the "choice" is between feticide or putting them in an incubator.
Canada a country that decided to go ultra-liberal on the whole issue, get rid of all legal protection for the unborn, and hand it entirely over to "medical ethics".

That allows the legislators to concentrate on much more important matters as gender-neutering their national anthem.

The attempt to dismiss what are tragedies as though they might be comparable to gender-neutral lyrics shows your complete ansence of empathy.

These are not women wno just "can't be bothered", they are always personal and family tragedies.
Why I had a late term abortion

Edit: The article above was written before the US presidential election, but the ending is relevant to our referendum:

"Before you snag your "I Voted" sticker, please think of me. Let your representatives know that it is not their right to choose a fetus, which wouldn't have survived, over a family, who may have never recovered."

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One person's "complete liberalisation" is another person's "total anarchy".
Of course its applicable to Ireland. Is the current govt. not proposing an amendment to remove all constitutional protection from the unborn?

Are they not arguing in the Supreme Court this very week that the unborn have zero human rights outside of that precarious 8th amendment?

Would you yourself not see that Canadian solution as the ultimate final solution to aim for? Complete and total liberalisation. Leave it up to the abortion clinics to decide their own rules.

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

One person's "complete liberalisation" is another person's "total anarchy".
Of course its applicable to Ireland. Is the current govt. not proposing an amendment to remove all constitutional protection from the unborn?

Are they not arguing in the Supreme Court this very week that the unborn have zero human rights outside of that precarious 8th amendment?

Would you yourself not see that Canadian solution as the ultimate final solution to aim for? Complete and total liberalisation. Leave it up to the abortion clinics to decide their own rules.

Are you against all abortions, or only late term ones?

Secondly, assuming it is particularly an issue with late term abortions, what do you think matters more, what the law says or doesnt say, or the actual rates of late term abortions?

Because afaiaa, the rates of abortions in Canada follow similar patterns as must about everywhere else, and in fact they have rather fewer late term abortions than their neighbouring US states.

recedite

No one is suggesting anything like a "final solution" (nice godwinning tho).

Well spotted

....... wrote: »

Im not sure where to start with this level of scaremongering so I will just state the facts and let them stand.
We do not yet know exactly what we will be asked to vote on but it looks as though we will be asked to repeal the 8th and allow for legislation that will give unrestricted abortions up to 12 weeks. No gestational limits for FFAs.
That's it. Abortion up to 12 weeks.

Sorry, but that is not "fact" at all. It will be a constitutional amendment to remove all human rights from the unborn, with added "enabling" wording to allow unlimited abortion subsequently, via legislation.

Once that goes through, the govt. will be "enabled" to introduce a "no questions asked" abortion regime up to 12 gestational weeks (or up to birth if they so choose)
BTW "enabling" is their own choice of words, so that particular piece of self-godwinning cannot be attributed to me.

recedite

volchitsa wrote: »

Because afaiaa, the rates of abortions in Canada follow similar patterns as must about everywhere else, and in fact they have rather fewer late term abortions than their neighbouring US states.

Did you not read the wiki link saying 2% in 2009?
Oh, don't tell me. You don't recognise wiki as an acceptable source.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

david75

There is a weird element at play in which certain factions believe that if they push the most hysterical worst possible option as fact and as what’s going to happen, people will believe it. And presumably vote against repeal.

It’s totally self defeating as this type of scare tactics and fear monger it simply doesn’t work and Ireland won’t ever adopt the position being proposed in these claims and statements. It doesn’t help anyone or the debate. We aren’t having that debate.

Come back and try to be reasonable and clear minded, folks. It’s almost bad baseless tabloid nonsense you’re engaging in and you lose people with even half a brain by doing it. It’s so flimsy and transparent.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have the govt. not been in the SC all last week arguing exactly the point that I just made?
That outside the 8th amendment, the unborn have absolutely no legal rights in this country.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are you nonsensically arguing that we should force women who are carrying a gravely or fatally impaired fetus as far as birth just because, you, dont agree with abortion?[/QUOTE]No, I'm not against abortion for FAA, nor do i know anyone who is. As far as I can see its a complete red herring being used to ram through an ultra liberal abortion regime.

I'd go further and say the 8th as it stands now, may not even prevent abortion in genuine cases of FFA. Either way, the 8th could easily be modified to clarify that it definitely does not. It was ruled in a case that involved a doomed foetus inside a brain dead woman, that there was no legal imperative requiring the doctor to keep the life of the foetus going until the bitter end. It was simply medical experimentation, for its own sake. So much for "medical ethics" eh?

As for a womans health being "at risk" (as opposed to a real or substantive risk to life)..... we all know that's how the ultra liberal abortion regimes of many other countries first gained a foothold.

Words like "health" which may seem reasonable to the electorate on the face of it, can be twisted later to mean almost anything. Even used to justify those late term abortions after 21 weeks. An ingrown toenail is a threat to health.

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

TBh JC and I don’t have a crystal ball or anything but I know that will never happen here. Ever. I think you’re probably worrying about the wrong thing in this regard.

You don't have a crystal ball but you "know" it won't happen.

Do tell us how you know?
It's snowing outside so I've time on my hands to await your response.:)