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

Markgc wrote: »

This wasn't rhetorical per se. I didn't know the answer. It was/is an exercise to expand my understanding of the ongoing debate.

It’s not known how many legal abortions are performed in the Republic of Ireland where there the woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy. Master of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Rhona Mahony’s estimate is ten to 20 per year; Master of the Rotunda Hospital Dr Sam Coulter Smith reckons 20 to 30 terminations are performed.
www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/07/8-myths/

20-30 abortions where the womans life is at risk in Ireland compared to 23 abortions for the same reason in England and Wales ... small numbers whichever way you look at it.

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

Good thing you read the report then:rolleyes:

you missed the start of the sentence

"Termination of pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis after 22 weeks, must be preceded by a foeticide "

From the same report

"In countries where it is an accepted medical practice, whenever a severe untreatable foetal disease or malformation, incompatible with a normal life, is diagnosed by prenatal diagnosis"

not exactly what you were trying to make it out to be;)

Late abortions aren't only carried out for foetal abnormalities ... (only 36% of late abortions were done for this reason in 2015 in England and Wales) ... and even then "a severe untreatable foetal disease or malformation, incompatible with a normal life "can be something as simple as a hare-lip or Downes Syndrome.

... and the following quote shows that most (61%) of late term abortions are carried out for health reasons ... for which 1,801 late abortions were done in 2015 in England and Wales.

Only 23 or 0.8% of late abortions were performed where the mothers life was at risk.

Quote;-
The NHS records the reasons given for abortions at all stages of development. In 2015, 2,877 abortions were performed at 20 weeks or above. 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 1046 (36%) were performed because of foetal abnormalities. (The data do not sum up to 100% because multiple reasons could be recorded for each abortion.)[21]
Reference:-
[21]Department of Health (17 May 2016). Report on abortion statistics in England and Wales for 2015 (PDF) (Report). p. 31 (Table 7b). Retrieved 2016-10-24.

recedite

Markgc wrote: »

As I am just beginning to explore this very sensitive I may or msy not have made an error in the wording above.
In this case, health for me is theoverall wellbeing of the woman and her ability to continue with the pregnancy.
With regard to 'risk to physical health' , I was refering to a deterioration of wellbeing, due to systematic infection for example.

You haven't made a mistake. The word health was used in English abortion law, whereas the word life is used in the Irish equivalent. And that is how abortion on demand slipped into being across the water.
A good proportion of the everyday prescriptions being handed out at any GP surgery will have the contra-indication written on them "not to be taken by pregnant women". It can be argued then that an abortion is "necessary" on "health" grounds, even for minor ailments. If that is the woman's choice.

So you can be pro-choice, or pro-life. But not both.

uptherebels

Markgc wrote: »

This wasn't rhetorical per se. I didn't know the answer. It was/is an exercise to expand my understanding of the ongoing debate.

It’s not known how many legal abortions are performed in the Republic of Ireland where there the woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy. Master of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Rhona Mahony’s estimate is ten to 20 per year; Master of the Rotunda Hospital Dr Sam Coulter Smith reckons 20 to 30 terminations are performed.
www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/07/8-myths/

Taking a country of similar population to Ireland, 5million approx, Denmark in the single 2014 year had fifteen thousand abortions (15,000)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-denmark.html

Norway fourteen thousand abortions in 2015(14,000)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-norway.html

There is disparity between the figures.

Of course there is disparity when you compare estimates for one reason for abortion against a figure including all reasons for abortion.
Were you expecting them to be equal?

david75

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

There have been lots of things which people said would never happen.

Man walking on the moon
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
The atomic bomb
Gay Marriage!

I am still laughing at your post. Step back and admire its stupidity. Please. Within the context of our debate here you are actually talking nonsense.

Markgc

Markgc wrote: »

I currently do not possess any real knowledge on the arguments for and against but with a potential referendum on the way there is obvious need to accustom ourselves with the issue in the coming weeks. There are difficult questions.

My first query is two part:
In a given year in Ireland how many women's lives or physical health is at risk?;

If the 8th is repelled it will probably be here to stay; how many children will be killed in, let's say, the following decade, taking into account people who want an abortion because the pregnancy is a mistake or interferes with their lifestyle?

This wasn't rhetorical per se. I didn't know the answer. It was/is an exercise to expand my understanding of the ongoing debate.

It’s not known how many legal abortions are performed in the Republic of Ireland where there the woman’s life is threatened by her pregnancy. Master of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Rhona Mahony’s estimate is ten to 20 per year; Master of the Rotunda Hospital Dr Sam Coulter Smith reckons 20 to 30 terminations are performed.
www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/07/8-myths/

Taking a country of similar population to Ireland, 5million approx, Denmark in the single 2014 year had fifteen thousand abortions (15,000)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-denmark.html

Norway fourteen thousand abortions in 2015(14,000)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-norway.html

There is disparity between the figures.

uptherebels

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

There have been lots of things which people said would never happen.

Man walking on the moon
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
The atomic bomb
Gay Marriage!

and conversely, lots of things would happen but didnt.

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

Throw all the sand up in the air you like. It would never happen here

The posts here suggest that women can walk in up to the moment of birth and demand abortion

That

Will

Never

Happen.

There have been lots of things which people said would never happen.

Man walking on the moon
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
The atomic bomb
Gay Marriage!

david75

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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.:)

Throw all the sand up in the air you like. It would never happen here

The posts here suggest that women can walk in up to the moment of birth and demand abortion

That

Will

Never

Happen.

Markgc

recedite wrote: »

Define "health".

As I am just beginning to explore this very sensitive I may or msy not have made an error in the wording above.
In this case, health for me is theoverall wellbeing of the woman and her ability to continue with the pregnancy.
With regard to 'risk to physical health' , I was refering to a deterioration of wellbeing, due to systematic infection for example.

uptherebels

recedite wrote: »

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".

[/URL].

Shocking?
Id be more shocked at people not asking why the late term abortions occured before jumping to conclusions

recedite

Markgc wrote: »

In a given year in Ireland how many women's lives or physical health is at risk?

Define "health".

Markgc

I currently do not possess any real knowledge on the arguments for and against but with a potential referendum on the way there is obvious need to accustom ourselves with the issue in the coming weeks. There are difficult questions.

My first query is two part:
In a given year in Ireland how many women's lives or physical health is at risk?;

If the 8th is repelled it will probably be here to stay; how many children will be killed in, let's say, the following decade, taking into account people who want an abortion because the pregnancy is a mistake or interferes with their lifestyle?

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

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."

Good thing you read the report then:rolleyes:

you missed the start of the sentence

"Termination of pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis after 22 weeks, must be preceded by a foeticide "

From the same report

"In countries where it is an accepted medical practice, whenever a severe untreatable foetal disease or malformation, incompatible with a normal life, is diagnosed by prenatal diagnosis"

not exactly what you were trying to make it out to be;)

To add:
Just because its on wikipedia with a "quote" doesnt make it correct.

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.:)

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.

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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.

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.

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.

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."

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

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.

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?

.......

This post has been deleted.

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.