Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

volchitsa · 05-03-2018 12:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm being honest.

I don't agree with preventing people from travelling, even if we think they will commit acts overseas that are illegal in Ireland but not in their destination country.

This is consistent with how we look at Irish men and women who join up in foreign armies and, yes, even kill children as part of their military duties.

You might not agree with my viewpoint, but your attempts to portray pro-lifers as hypocrites because they don't oppose the right to travel is bogus. You only resort to it out of desperation because your other arguments are frequently unconvincing or, as we established a few days ago, rely on making false statements.

It's not consistent with the army analogy at all. For one thing, because we do have an army and we have killed people using it. So it's not at all clear why being in a different army would lead to murder charges. Being in the Irish Army and carrying out orders in its name is legal, being in a foreign army is not illegal, so carrying out its legal orders would not be illegal either.

Nothing like travelling to commit an act which would be illegal in Ireland. Thwt is like FGM or child sex abuse - and several countries have banned those for their citizens abroad. So could we - if we wished. I suspect "we" "don't wish", precisely because of our abortion law and the 13th.

Our law requires that we allow women's health to be permanently harmed, rather than end a pregnancy, and we have a possible 14 year prison sentence as dissuasion. That makes abortion a serious act, nothing like joining a foreign army, never mind bullfighting.

You can keep repeating that the right to travel is more important than that again, but since you haven't made any attempt to explain why, nor explain inconsistences such as Ms O'Rorke who was in fact stopped from travelling to Switzerland with her friend, I think at some point we just have to apply the saying that a claim which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Even though you've actually been given quite a lot of evidence. Which is why the accusation of hypocrisy is perfectly fair at this stage, IMO.

volchitsa · 05-03-2018 12:32PM

Bredabe wrote: »

Who decides when its "Self defense and only alternative"? how can we be sure that those decisions aren't based on selfish motives? You say that an unborn baby is "innocent" how do we know that, especially where some forms of psychiatric illness(speaking of the serial killer type conditions) are inherited? additionally, how it is decided that say, child soldiers are or not "innocent"?
women who are being denied best practice in continuing pregnancies because of the 8th, are they not "innocents" in this too?

This is just one of the signs that "Support the 8th" is fundamentally a religious stance. "Innocent" actually seems to mean "hasn't had sex", as even a child who is pregnant through rape is no longer automatically "innocent" by prolife logic.
Or it may be descibed as the Eve syndrome : females in general, at least once they reach puberty, are to be distrusted. I think the two notions are closely related, if not fundamentally the same.

Nick Park · 05-03-2018 12:41PM

volchitsa wrote: »

You can keep repeating that the right to travel is more important than that again, but since you haven't made any attempt to explain why, nor explain inconsistences such as Ms O'Rorke who was in fact stopped from travelling to Switzerland with her friend, I think at some point we just have to apply the saying that a claim which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So I'm a hypocrite because I believe a pregnant woman should have the freedom to travel and because I also believe that Ms O'Rorke should have been allowed to travel?

Please do explain how that makes me a hypocrite. I'm all ears.

Nick Park · 05-03-2018 12:50PM

volchitsa wrote: »

This is just one of the signs that "Support the 8th" is fundamentally a religious stance.

Are you trying to set a record for the maximum number of untruthful statements in one day?

I know quite a few people who are non-religious and support the Eight Amendment. I also know religious people who are for Repeal.

"Innocent" actually seems to mean "hasn't had sex"

There's another lie. I've never met any pro-lifer who believed such a thing.

females in general, at least once they reach puberty, are to be distrusted.

Wow! Three flat-out lies in one post. You're really going for it. Again, I have never met a single pro-lifer who thought women should be trusted less than men.

....... · 05-03-2018 01:48PM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 05-03-2018 02:18PM

Nick Park wrote: »

So I'm a hypocrite because I believe a pregnant woman should have the freedom to travel and because I also believe that Ms O'Rorke should have been allowed to travel?

Please do explain how that makes me a hypocrite. I'm all ears.

No, that's not what I said.

The problem is in supporting a ban on abortion in Ireland on the grounds that the unborn is more important than a woman's health, while also supporting a right to travel as being more important than the life of the unborn.

It may not even be hypocritical, if your general opinion is that women are not terribly important for example, less important than a right to travel - but it's certainly problematic.

Here's another RL example : a well-known Muslim Imam, Ali Selim of Clonskeagh, recently got into hot water for claiming, among other things, that parents could legally take their daughters abroad for FGM in the same way as they can travel for abortion.

Do you support him in that belief?
Why or why not?

volchitsa · 05-03-2018 02:34PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Are you trying to set a record for the maximum number of untruthful statements in one day?

I know quite a few people who are non-religious and support the Eight Amendment. I also know religious people who are for Repeal.

Religious people can certainly support Repeal, based on the harm ot does to women for one thing, but non religious people who actively support the 8th are surprisingly shy when it comes to speaking out other than anonymously.

I suspect that is because their absence of religious background probably doesnt stand up to much examination. But hey maybe you can give me half a dozen names, the equivalent of Caroline Simons or Breda o'Brien or David Quinn, but with no religious affiliation? Ok even three.

There's another lie. I've never met any pro-lifer who believed such a thing.

Since I didnt say that, I'm sure you'll be happy to apologize for the unwarranted accusation. I said that is the origin of the belief about the extra value accorded to "innocence" in this context. If you unpick it, you'll see that that is so : in what way is the woman who needs an abortion to save her health any less innocent?

The fact that many people buy into this without thinking too deeply about it doesn't mean they believe it consciously. It's a consequence of our education sustem and history. Like someone saying "Jesus Christ!" to express frustration would mean that person was a catholic. It doesn't, but that is where the expression comes from all the same, and it tells you something about that person's upbringing.

Wow! Three flat-out lies in one post. You're really going for it. Again, I have never met a single pro-lifer who thought women should be trusted less than men.

Nope, that is another "misunderstanding" of what I said. But if you are going to deny the effect of the story of Eve on women's status throughout western history there's not much point in me explaining it.

Nick Park · 05-03-2018 02:50PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No, that's not what I said.

It is indeed what you said.

volchitsa wrote:

You can keep repeating that the right to travel is more important than that again, but since you haven't made any attempt to explain why, nor explain inconsistences such as Ms O'Rorke who was in fact stopped from travelling to Switzerland with her friend, I think at some point we just have to apply the saying that a claim which is advanced without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Even though you've actually been given quite a lot of evidence. Which is why the accusation of hypocrisy is perfectly fair at this stage, IMO.

Why would you deny what you've said when we can all read exactly what you said?

end of the road · 05-03-2018 04:49PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The evidence shows that a ban on abortion has little to no effect on numbers of women having abortions, and instead merely causes women to be harmed by unsafe abortions.

the bann is deterring some abortions. the evidence you refer to is being interpreted differently to what it actually says. what it says is that a bann does not stop women from seeking an abortion which is not being denied. however, it's along the same lines as the laws in relation to stopping murder not preventing every murder.

volchitsa wrote: »

Why are these better comparisons? Because they don't show up the hypocrisy quite so completely?

You have a crime which is so serious that we have put it in our constitution, and have given it a possible FOURTEEN YEAR prison sentence - but it isn't reasonable to compare it to other serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM, or even assisted suicide, whereas it is comparable to bull fighting and military service abroad?

That doesn't make sense. Except as a way of refusing to acknowledge the deliberate hypocrisy of our laws.

Yes we could make travel to terminate a pregnancy illegal if we wanted to, but instead we amended the constitution so that the X case could never happen again, ie, so that women and children could travel to terminate their pregnancies.

Let's at least be honest about this.

there is no hypocrisy. our laws are fine and recognise the reality that we cannot prevent someone from traveling to a country to commit an act that is legal.

volchitsa wrote: »

This is just one of the signs that "Support the 8th" is fundamentally a religious stance. "Innocent" actually seems to mean "hasn't had sex", as even a child who is pregnant through rape is no longer automatically "innocent" by prolife logic.
Or it may be descibed as the Eve syndrome : females in general, at least once they reach puberty, are to be distrusted. I think the two notions are closely related, if not fundamentally the same.

if anyone believes what you have just written, they would be in a very very tiny minority.
plenty of people are pro-life and not religious. 99% of us who are pro-life have sex and we like it and enjoy it the same as anyone else.
another failed attempt in trying to make pro-life out to be women and sex haters/shamers.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you haven't called anyone out on lies, rather, you have told plenty of them.

J C · 05-03-2018 09:58PM

Bredabe wrote: »

Who decides when its "Self defense and only alternative"? how can we be sure that those decisions aren't based on selfish motives?

There are rules of war that specify war crimes ... and these determine what is and isn't legally (and morally) allowed to countries in self defence.

Bredabe wrote: »

You say that an unborn baby is "innocent" how do we know that, especially where some forms of psychiatric illness(speaking of the serial killer type conditions) are inherited? additionally, how it is decided that say, child soldiers are or not "innocent"?

... unborn children who represent no threat to life are innocent ... and shouldn't be killed.

Bredabe wrote: »

women who are being denied best practice in continuing pregnancies because of the 8th, are they not "innocents" in this too?

Best practice is to care for both the mother and her child.

volchitsa · 05-03-2018 11:19PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It is indeed what you said.

Why would you deny what you've said when we can all read exactly what you said?

You said I said this: "So I'm a hypocrite because I believe a pregnant woman should have the freedom to travel and because I also believe that Ms O'Rorke should have been allowed to travel?

I didnt, and you quoted what I did say, so you should probably reread it.

And the hypocrisy - as I said - is in continuing to assert things that are untrue, after having been shown evidence that they are untrue. One example being that Ireland could not, if it wanted to, make travelling for abortion illegal.

Oh and you didn't reply to the question about whether you thought that was impossible, or whether you think girls' or women's health is simply lower on your list of priorities than the right to travel, as exemplified by Ali Selim's claim that parents can take their daughters abroad for fgm under the same rule?

IMO, whether or not there is hypocrisy involved probably depends on that reply.

david75 · 05-03-2018 11:58PM

This thread is worth a read. When the hysteria and outright lying are faced with facts from a medical practiotner. A snapshot of the micorcosm of this debate.
https://twitter.com/ericadvm/status/969912613143568384?s=21

end of the road · 06-03-2018 12:26AM

david75 wrote: »

This thread is worth a read. When the hysteria and outright lying are faced with facts from a medical practiotner. A snapshot of the micorcosm of this debate.
https://twitter.com/ericadvm/status/969912613143568384?s=21

nope, just another one of the old slogan types denying actual facts.

david75 · 06-03-2018 12:28AM

end of the road wrote: »

nope, just another one of the old slogan types denying actual facts.

What colour is the sky in lala land? Do you enjoy living there?

end of the road · 06-03-2018 12:33AM

david75 wrote: »

What colour is the sky in lala land? Do you enjoy living there?

what i stated is correct. if we follow the logic "if you don't like murder then don't commit a murder, we don't need laws against murder to protect the people"

Delirium · 06-03-2018 09:26AM

end of the road wrote: »

what i stated is correct. if we follow the logic "if you don't like murder then don't commit a murder, we don't need laws against murder to protect the people"

That's illogical as murder is, by definition, an illegal killing.

Delirium · 06-03-2018 09:30AM

Saw this reply in Irish Times (which is a response to another letter that was quoted in the thread):

Sir, – Fr John Joyce (“Abortion is barbaric whether carried out legally or not”, Rite & Reason, February 27th) rests his argument that abortion is always barbaric on the moral status of the foetus, which he considers a human being from conception. What he does not concede, however, is that this very question is contested; indeed, that is at the heart of the long-standing ethical dilemma about abortion. When one concedes this moral disagreement, then the nature of the question about the legal regulation of abortion must change from “How can law prevent moral injury to the foetus” to “How can the law best support ethical decision-making by pregnant people as moral agents?”

Rather than starting from the foetus, the moral status of which is contested, one might more usefully start with the pregnant person.
Nobody would disagree that a woman (or girl) is a human being; that she has a clear moral status; and that she holds the full range of human rights that flow from her humanity and are protected by law. Nor would anyone reasonably claim that a woman or girl becomes less human when she becomes pregnant. If this is so, then any proposition that, as a matter of constitutional law, a woman’s human rights should be diminished upon pregnancy (as is the case under the Eighth Amendment) becomes difficult to sustain. This becomes even more troubling if one recognises that by drastically restricting a pregnant person’s ability to exercise her full range of legally protected rights during pregnancy, the Constitution effectively “relieves” her of the burden of ethical decision-making about the maintenance of foetal life, replacing it with the physical, emotional, spiritual, mental, and life-long burden of maintaining pregnancy and giving birth.

In so doing, the Constitution purports to avoid an arguable moral wrong (abortion) with a certain moral wrong (abrogation of the will and diminishment of the rights of a pregnant person). However, where foetal life is maintained through voluntary and consensual pregnancy, both the arguable and certain moral wrongs are avoided. From the perspective of law, this can only be achieved by a legal arrangement that recognises that it is the pregnant person – ideally in an atmosphere of care, love, support, and deliberation with trusted friends and partners – who should make the decision about whether to continue with pregnancy and maintain foetal life.

For people for whom abortion is a morally and ethically difficult matter, then, the question for the referendum surely is not whether abortion is wrong per se, but whether law should support pregnant people in making ethical decisions about maintaining foetal life. These decisions will sometimes end in abortion, and, far more often, with the decision to continue with a pregnancy. However, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed, it is the woman and not the State that will make that decision.
Seen in this way it becomes clear that one who has an ethical objection to abortion can still support repeal of the Eighth Amendment. Indeed, many people who identify as pro-choice are also anti-abortion.

If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals. The way to do this – for all of us, however we identify in the debates about the rights and wrongs of abortion – is to repeal the Eighth Amendment and recognise pregnant women as moral agents. – Yours, etc,

Prof FIONA de LONDRAS,
Chair of Global
Legal Studies,
Deputy Head of School,
Birmingham Law School,
University of Birmingham,
Edgbaston,
Birmingham,
United Kingdom.

Source

pilly · 06-03-2018 11:27AM

david75 wrote: »

This thread is worth a read. When the hysteria and outright lying are faced with facts from a medical practiotner. A snapshot of the micorcosm of this debate.
https://twitter.com/ericadvm/status/969912613143568384?s=21

Tbf neither one of those tweets come across well.

Crazies be cray I suppose.

Bredabe · 06-03-2018 01:03PM

J C wrote: »

There are rules of war that specify war crimes ... and these determine what is and isn't legally (and morally) allowed to countries in self defence.

... unborn children who represent no threat to life are innocent ... and shouldn't be killed.

Best practice is to care for both the mother and her child.

That's interesting, where can I read these rules? my question was whether a child fighter is evil or not, because of the situation they find themselves in?

That doesn't answer my question, if we know that they born child is likely to be a danger to other's who are not as strong or inclined to cruelty as they are, is THAT unborn considered innocent?

Best practice MAYBE to care for both, but in my wealth of experience, it's not what happens. I know a lot of women who suffered unnecessarily so things would "be better for the baby", causing long-term issues for mum and therefor baby. Assuming either survive.

looksee · 06-03-2018 04:23PM

I have a friend who has a child with very serious medical issues. By force of will and total dedication she has defied all prognostications and not only kept the child alive but has made significant progress. He will be a life's work, never independent. The amount of 24 hour, specialised care that she and her husband have given this child for the last 8 years is unimaginable. Then she became pregnant again and was told this child had the same issues. It would be beyond the physical and emotional capabilities of a couple to do the same again for another child so she decided on the advice of her doctor(s) to have an abortion -under 3 months. She was utterly devastated at this decision, but realised it was the only option. She made the heartbroken trip to England and brought back the tiny foetus, which was given a funeral. She didn't make a particular secret of the situation, the support she received was 100%. As far as I know she did not have any negative reactions from any one else at all.

It is entirely right that there should be discussion about abortion, and an awareness of the implications, but a great deal of the self-righteous, vicious posturing that goes on is sickening. There are real people in real situations, the sanctimonious preaching of a few does not help them. No individual is obliged to have an abortion. If you do not believe in them, don't have one - and hope you will never be in the situation of having to have one. But it is a decision between a couple, or a woman, and her doctor, and no-one else's business.

end of the road · 06-03-2018 07:55PM

Delirium wrote: »

That's illogical as murder is, by definition, an illegal killing.

that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all.

Delirium wrote: »

Saw this reply in Irish Times (which is a response to another letter that was quoted in the thread):

Source

basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measure
for a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins.
secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances.
thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to.
fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian.
as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland.

looksee wrote: »

I have a friend who has a child with very serious medical issues. By force of will and total dedication she has defied all prognostications and not only kept the child alive but has made significant progress. He will be a life's work, never independent. The amount of 24 hour, specialised care that she and her husband have given this child for the last 8 years is unimaginable. Then she became pregnant again and was told this child had the same issues. It would be beyond the physical and emotional capabilities of a couple to do the same again for another child so she decided on the advice of her doctor(s) to have an abortion -under 3 months. She was utterly devastated at this decision, but realised it was the only option. She made the heartbroken trip to England and brought back the tiny foetus, which was given a funeral. She didn't make a particular secret of the situation, the support she received was 100%. As far as I know she did not have any negative reactions from any one else at all.

It is entirely right that there should be discussion about abortion, and an awareness of the implications, but a great deal of the self-righteous, vicious posturing that goes on is sickening. There are real people in real situations, the sanctimonious preaching of a few does not help them. No individual is obliged to have an abortion. If you do not believe in them, don't have one - and hope you will never be in the situation of having to have one. But it is a decision between a couple, or a woman, and her doctor, and no-one else's business.

the killing of other human beings is very much society's business whether you want it to be or not. the fact some human beings are unborn doesn't change that reality. to follow your logic through would require the stance that killing a newborn should be between a couple, or a woman and a doctor or other trained professional. see how that doesn't work? abortion is rightly never going to be left to be between a couple or a woman and her doctor, elements of society will rightly condemn abortion on demand and that is how it should be.

Timberrrrrrrr · 06-03-2018 08:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all.

basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measure
for a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins.
secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances.
thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to.
fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian.
as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland.

the killing of other human beings is very much society's business whether you want it to be or not. the fact some human beings are unborn doesn't change that reality. to follow your logic through would require the stance that killing a newborn should be between a couple, or a woman and a doctor or other trained professional. see how that doesn't work? abortion is rightly never going to be left to be between a couple or a woman and her doctor, elements of society will rightly condemn abortion on demand and that is how it should be.

Pretty much every post of yours I have ever read is described in that one sentence.

uck51js9zml2yt · 06-03-2018 08:33PM

looksee wrote: »

I have a friend who has a child with very serious medical issues. By force of will and total dedication she has defied all prognostications and not only kept the child alive but has made significant progress. He will be a life's work, never independent. The amount of 24 hour, specialised care that she and her husband have given this child for the last 8 years is unimaginable. Then she became pregnant again and was told this child had the same issues. It would be beyond the physical and emotional capabilities of a couple to do the same again for another child so she decided on the advice of her doctor(s) to have an abortion -under 3 months. She was utterly devastated at this decision, but realised it was the only option. She made the heartbroken trip to England and brought back the tiny foetus, which was given a funeral. She didn't make a particular secret of the situation, the support she received was 100%. As far as I know she did not have any negative reactions from any one else at all.

It is entirely right that there should be discussion about abortion, and an awareness of the implications, but a great deal of the self-righteous, vicious posturing that goes on is sickening. There are real people in real situations, the sanctimonious preaching of a few does not help them. No individual is obliged to have an abortion. If you do not believe in them, don't have one - and hope you will never be in the situation of having to have one. But it is a decision between a couple, or a woman, and her doctor, and no-one else's business.

And yet the nation is being asked to decide!

volchitsa · 06-03-2018 08:46PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

And yet the nation is being asked to decide!

That was exactly what SPUC and co. were counting on in 1983.

Delirium · 06-03-2018 08:50PM

end of the road wrote: »

that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all.

basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measure
for a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins.

Which is what the letter pretty much said given that it is addressing abortion. He said there isn't a consensus on a human being existing from conception. Ironically, your own 'disagreement' actually confirms what he said in his letter.

secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances.

But the letter was talking in broad strokes, not the narrow focus you would prefer. Ethical choices are removed from the woman regarding the pregnancy. Choices about her medical care and pregnancy are denied to her.
The contested moral state of the foetus is given more importance to that of the uncontested moral state of the woman (i.e. no one is arguing she isn't a human being).

thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to.

Not correct. A person may only support abortion in cases of foetal abnormalities or rape, which necessitates repeal.

fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian.
as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland.

Only if you didn't understand the letter. Society has a moral responsibility to human beings, which (pregnant or otherwise) women are. Foetuses are or are not depending on who you ask, there's no consensus.

To suggest that murder, rape or torture should be legal shows you didn't grasp what the author wrote.

volchitsa · 06-03-2018 08:53PM

end of the road wrote: »

that's my point. the "if you don't want to have an abortion/don't like abortion don't have one" nonsense is illogical because abortion is killing and in this country it is illegal killing. to follow that logic through would require having no laws at all.

basically the responce is a non-argument with some failed logic and a few inaccuracies for good measure
for a start the fetus being human is only disputed by some in support of abortion on demand. the experts don't seem to dispute it. what is disputed is when personhood begins.
secondly, a woman's human rights isn't reduced by the 8th, her rights are equal to that of the unborn bar where her life is in danger. so technically she actually has more rights then the unborn in certain circumstances.
thirdly, if one is against abortion they cannot morally vote for repeal, even though there are other issues with the 8th, as by disagreeing with abortion then one has an obligation to prevent it from being allowed to take place within the state outside medical necessity if they are truely against it. you cannot be pro-choice and anti-abortion, because by definition, being against abortion means you don't want it happening or being able to happen unless absolutely necessary. being pro-choice means you agree with it's availability, which by definition you agree with being able to access facilities to cary out the act should you need to.
fourthly if we are to follow the logic of the author of the responce "If we believe that we are, each of us, moral agents, then surely our collective responsibility is to support ethical decision-making by individuals" then by that logic we must remove all the laws of the land and leave decisians up to the individual, as one person's ethical decisian is another's unethical decisian.
as i knew would happen, they have put forward no argument to repeal the 8th, and that is why it is vital it must not be repealed until some actual proposals are put forward rather then abortion on demand, which isn't required in ireland.

the killing of other human beings is very much society's business whether you want it to be or not. the fact some human beings are unborn doesn't change that reality. to follow your logic through would require the stance that killing a newborn should be between a couple, or a woman and a doctor or other trained professional. see how that doesn't work? abortion is rightly never going to be left to be between a couple or a woman and her doctor, elements of society will rightly condemn abortion on demand and that is how it should be.

That argument collapses in Ireland because of the 13th. We chose to allow women to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, or at least for reasons that we as a country have no control over.

And the nonsense about it being our business when it happens in Ireland but not our business when the same fetus is aborted a few miles down the road is just that, nonsense.

Repeating it doesn't make it true when Gail O'Rorke was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to assist her friend's suicide, or when the UK and the USA have passed laws that allow them punish their citizens for serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM even when they are carried out in a country where they are legal.

We could do the same for abortion if we wanted to. We just don't want to.

J C · 06-03-2018 09:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

That argument collapses in Ireland because of the 13th. We chose to allow women to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, or at least for reasons that we as a country have no control over.

And the nonsense about it being our business when it happens in Ireland but not our business when the same fetus is aborted a few miles down the road is just that, nonsense.

Repeating it doesn't make it true when Gail O'Rorke was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to assist her friend's suicide,

Please cite the law under which she was detained.

volchitsa wrote: »

or when the UK and the USA have passed laws that allow them punish their citizens for serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM even when they are carried out in a country where they are legal.

Please cite these laws.

volchitsa wrote: »

We could do the same for abortion if we wanted to. We just don't want to.

We can't ... and repeating it doesn't make it true.

end of the road · 06-03-2018 10:23PM

Delirium wrote: »

Which is what the letter pretty much said given that it is addressing abortion. He said there isn't a consensus on a human being existing from conception. Ironically, your own 'disagreement' actually confirms what he said in his letter.

But the letter was talking in broad strokes, not the narrow focus you would prefer. Ethical choices are removed from the woman regarding the pregnancy. Choices about her medical care and pregnancy are denied to her.
The contested moral state of the foetus is given more importance to that of the uncontested moral state of the woman (i.e. no one is arguing she isn't a human being).

Not correct. A person may only support abortion in cases of foetal abnormalities or rape, which necessitates repeal.

Only if you didn't understand the letter. Society has a moral responsibility to human beings, which (pregnant or otherwise) women are. Foetuses are or are not depending on who you ask, there's no consensus.

To suggest that murder, rape or torture should be legal shows you didn't grasp what the author wrote.

i did grasp it though. and it's not me suggesting rape murder or torture should be legal. it's the logic of the author that is suggesting it even though the author isn't suggesting it.

volchitsa wrote: »

That argument collapses in Ireland because of the 13th. We chose to allow women to terminate their pregnancies for any reason, or at least for reasons that we as a country have no control over.

And the nonsense about it being our business when it happens in Ireland but not our business when the same fetus is aborted a few miles down the road is just that, nonsense.

Repeating it doesn't make it true when Gail O'Rorke was stopped from travelling to Switzerland to assist her friend's suicide, or when the UK and the USA have passed laws that allow them punish their citizens for serious crimes like child sex abuse or FGM even when they are carried out in a country where they are legal.

We could do the same for abortion if we wanted to. We just don't want to.

no we only allowed them to travel. the current situation while not ideal as abortions are happening, is a deterrent to some, and is an expence for those who wish to have it, meaning things are made difficult for them.

Delirium · 06-03-2018 10:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

i did grasp it though. and it's not me suggesting rape murder or torture should be legal. it's the logic of the author that is suggesting it even though the author isn't suggesting it.

Ignoring that your post clearly shows you didn't grasp it, please explain how society can meet its moral responsibility while allowing, for example, murder to be legal?

david75 · 06-03-2018 10:44PM

Oh look. A terminally ill woman dying of cancer having to travel for abortion.

If she only had been able to access the care she needed here in her own country.

State settled with cancer patient
The State has paid substantial compensation to a woman who was forced to travel to Britain for an abortion despite being terminally ill

In 2010, after she became unintentionally pregnant while suffering from a malignant melanoma, doctors at Cork University Hospital advised her to terminate her pregnancy because of the risk to her health.

Mr Boylan said her obstetrician was willing to perform a termination but was “hamstrung” by legal issues. The issue was referred to the hospital’s “ad hoc” ethics committee.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-settled-with-cancer-patient-1.555035

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments