Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

volchitsa · 06-03-2018 11:18PM

J C wrote: »

Please cite the law under which she was detained.

Why? Are you suggesting it didnt happen? Because it did.

Gail O’Rorke has spoken about the moment two gardaí approached her as she was about to book flights to Switzerland so friend Bernadette Forde could end her life.

Or that there is a reason why this could not be done to women attempting to travel to the UK? Because we know the ansswer to that : the people voted to allow them to travel for abortions, when they voted the 13th amendment.

And we could be having a referendum to remove it, in May, instead of the one that is planned. But nobody wants to remove it. Not even pro-life. Or not that they are prepared to admit anyway.

J C wrote: »

Please cite these laws.

Why? So you can waste my time instead of having to admit you were wrong?
The laws exist. Here's just one, the UK one, Section 72 of the 2003 sexual offences act :
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/72

72 Offences outside the United Kingdom

[F2(1)If—
(a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b) the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,
the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales of that sexual offence.

Sex tourists face UK prosecution over abuse abroad

J C wrote: »

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

So now you know that we can, because we stopped Gail O'Rorke travelling for assisted suicide, and because other countries do the same for illegal actions like child sex abuse and FGM abroad, you need to explain why exactly you think Ireland couldn't rescind the 13th and have the ability to prevent women from travelling if there is a suspicion they may be looking for an abortion, ame punish any that have one and then come back.

After all, this is an action that is so serious that the need to preserve a woman's health cannot be taken into account even when the woman is miscarrying and the baby cannot be saved.

So it's really rather odd that people who are pro-life are so very determined to claim that they couldnt possibly do anything to prevent this!

volchitsa · 06-03-2018 11:23PM

end of the road wrote: »

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.

So does this law apply to other actions that are illegal in Ireland but may be legal elsewhere? Maybe FGM for example, as the Imam of Clonskeagh mosque has suggested?

end of the road · 06-03-2018 11:39PM

Delirium wrote: »

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?

it clearly can't, hence we have laws against murder. the same as society cannot meet it's moral responsibility while allowing the killing of the unborn to be legal. currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland. if the 8th is repealed, it will no longer be meeting it's moral responsibility to protect the unborn.

volchitsa wrote: »

Why? Are you suggesting it didnt happen? Because it did.

Or that there is a reason why this could not be done to women attempting to travel to the UK? Because we know the ansswer to that : the people voted to allow them to travel for abortions, when they voted the 13th amendment.

And we could be having a referendum to remove it, in May, instead of the one that is planned. But nobody wants to remove it. Not even pro-life. Or not that they are prepared to admit anyway.

Why? So you can waste my time instead of having to admit you were wrong?
The laws exist. Here's just one, the UK one, Section 72 of the 2003 sexual offences act :
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/72

Sex tourists face UK prosecution over abuse abroad

So now you know that we can, because we stopped Gail O'Rorke travelling for assisted suicide, and because other countries do the same for illegal actions like child sex abuse and FGM abroad, you need to explain why exactly you think Ireland couldn't rescind the 13th and have the ability to prevent women from travelling if there is a suspicion they may be looking for an abortion, ame punish any that have one and then come back.

After all, this is an action that is so serious that the need to preserve a woman's health cannot be taken into account even when the woman is miscarrying and the baby cannot be saved.

So it's really rather odd that people who are pro-life are so very determined to claim that they couldnt possibly do anything to prevent this!

as explained, to implament this would require innocent pregnant women being effect, dispite not traveling for an abortion. so the innocent would be effected for the non-innocent who wish to kill their unborn for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

volchitsa · 06-03-2018 11:52PM

end of the road wrote: »

as explained, to implament this would require innocent pregnant women being effect, dispite not traveling for an abortion. so the innocent would be effected for the non-innocent who wish to kill their unborn for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

You're making this up as you go along now, it seems. I've seen young men stopped and questioned for looking (in the guards' eyes) like they were looking for a fight. It happens. Surely preventing a possible fight is not more important than saving a baby's life?

Women could have a note from the doctor to say they were attending antenatal clinic regularly and not planning to terminate the pregnancy. It's not rocket science. We just dont want to do it, that's all.

And then there are the women who come back after an abortion and need medical treatment : should even they not be arrested and punished? That would certainly put others off in the future, since you said the expense etc was justified for that reason.

david75 · 07-03-2018 12:05AM

end of the road wrote: »

it clearly can't, hence we have laws against murder. the same as society cannot meet it's moral responsibility while allowing the killing of the unborn to be legal. currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland. if the 8th is repealed, it will no longer be meeting it's moral responsibility to protect the unborn.

as explained, to implament this would require innocent pregnant women being effect, dispite not traveling for an abortion. so the innocent would be effected for the non-innocent who wish to kill their unborn for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.

You are talking about women in terms of innocent and non innocent. Seriously?

It’s exactly that archaic redundant and self defeating nonsense that will lose you and pro life this referendum.

end of the road · 07-03-2018 12:25AM

david75 wrote: »

You are talking about women in terms of innocent and non innocent. Seriously?

It’s exactly that archaic redundant and self defeating nonsense that will lose you and pro life this referendum.

again with the wishful thinking with no basis in fact or reality. the only thing that will lose pro-life the referendum is the numbers. the same with pro-choice if they lose and we win. there is nothing archaic redundant and self defeating about describing women who don't have an abortion on demand as innocent, and women who have abortions on demand as non-innocent, due to the fact they have killed their unborn child, for reasons other then medical necessity. they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.

david75 · 07-03-2018 12:54AM

end of the road wrote: »

again with the wishful thinking with no basis in fact or reality. the only thing that will lose pro-life the referendum is the numbers. the same with pro-choice if they lose and we win. there is nothing archaic redundant and self defeating about describing women who don't have an abortion on demand as innocent, and women who have abortions on demand as non-innocent, due to the fact they have killed their unborn child, for reasons other then medical necessity. they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.

Copy and pasting response. Again.

Where are you going to go at the end of your road.

You’re calling women who have abortions guilty.

Guilty of what exactly? And do you not see how that language is self destructive to your agenda??

I know that you don’t so I’m not worried about you guys winning because your agenda is so flawed. In fact I’m enjoying it if I’m honest

end of the road · 07-03-2018 01:04AM

david75 wrote: »

Copy and pasting response. Again.

Where are you going to go at the end of your road.

You’re calling women who have abortions guilty.

Guilty of what exactly? And do you not see how that language is self destructive to your agenda??

I know that you don’t so I’m not worried about you guys winning because your agenda is so flawed. In fact I’m enjoying it if I’m honest

they are guilty of killing another human being in the form of their unborn baby. there is nothing flaud about wanting to protect as much as is practical, the rights and life of the unborn, the same as any other human beings.
+ i don't do copy and pastes, every responce is written from scratch to insure a full and honest responce to the point made.

david75 · 07-03-2018 01:27AM

You didn’t grasp the fact that you’re copy and pasting from the same threadbare tired hymn sheet. You are having a totally different debate from the rest of the entire country. We’re talking about women and their rights to bodily autonomy. That’s what this referendum is actually about.
You’re calling a foetus a child. Youre wrong and nobody calls a zygote or foetus, a child. They are not a child neither of them.
You did say unborn. That’s a step in the right direction.

end of the road · 07-03-2018 01:59AM

david75 wrote: »

You didn’t grasp the fact that you’re copy and pasting from the same threadbare tired hymn sheet. You are having a totally different debate from the rest of the entire country. We’re talking about women and their rights to bodily autonomy. That’s what this referendum is actually about.
You’re calling a foetus a child. Youre wrong and nobody calls a zygote or foetus, a child. They are not a child neither of them.
You did say unborn. That’s a step in the right direction.

i am having the exact same debate as everyone else. the debate is about repealing the 8th and the introduction of abortion on demand, aka the killing of the unborn on demand, without restriction or good reason, up to 12 weeks. only some are talking about women and their rights to bodily autonomy, because they believe such rights should extend to being able to kill other human beings. the rest of us don't need to have that debate, because none of our rights to bodily autonomy, extend to being able to commit acts that harm others.
i'm not calling a fetus a child. i'm calling it a human being/unborn baby. those are factually correct and i'm therefore right on that score.

david75 · 07-03-2018 02:22AM

end of the road wrote: »

i am having the exact same debate as everyone else. the debate is about repealing the 8th and the introduction of abortion on demand, aka the killing of the unborn on demand, without restriction or good reason, up to 12 weeks. only some are talking about women and their rights to bodily autonomy, because they believe such rights should extend to being able to kill other human beings. the rest of us don't need to have that debate, because none of our rights to bodily autonomy, extend to being able to commit acts that harm others.
i'm not calling a fetus a child. i'm calling it a human being/unborn baby. those are factually correct and i'm therefore right on that score.

And none of your rights moral or physical extend to determine or supercede what choices other people get to decide for their own.

This is the part you’re not getting. That’s my point. That’s the power by you’re unwilling to accept.

You don’t get to have a say over someone else’s medical choices. No matter what.

end of the road · 07-03-2018 03:00AM

david75 wrote: »

And none of your rights moral or physical extend to determine or supercede what choices other people get to decide for their own.

except technically they do, where those choices inflict on my rights. the same with the unborn, where the woman's choice culminates in that child being killed, her choice is correctly supercedeed by the right to life of the unborn, within the irish state.

david75 wrote: »

This is the part you’re not getting. That’s my point. That’s the power by you’re unwilling to accept.

You don’t get to have a say over someone else’s medical choices. No matter what.

agreed and i'm not trying to have a say in such. however i do get to have a say in their choice to kill others though. which is exactly what i will be exercising come referendum day, and is exactly what is happening currently, via the law that prohibits abortion on demand in ireland.

Delirium · 07-03-2018 09:18AM

end of the road wrote: »

it clearly can't, hence we have laws against murder. the same as society cannot meet it's moral responsibility while allowing the killing of the unborn to be legal. currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland. if the 8th is repealed, it will no longer be meeting it's moral responsibility to protect the unborn.

You said the author was arguing the case for no laws, i.e. moral responsibility can be met if murder was legalised. Now you're saying it can't??

And re the moral responsibility to the unborn, that's a contested issue. But the failing of moral responsibility to the woman is uncontested, i.e. removing rights and choices when pregnant.

Delirium · 07-03-2018 09:22AM

end of the road wrote: »

again with the wishful thinking with no basis in fact or reality. the only thing that will lose pro-life the referendum is the numbers. the same with pro-choice if they lose and we win. there is nothing archaic redundant and self defeating about describing women who don't have an abortion on demand as innocent, and women who have abortions on demand as non-innocent, due to the fact they have killed their unborn child, for reasons other then medical necessity. they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.

So taking an abortion pill is worse than sexually molesting a child? Really????

uptherebels · 07-03-2018 09:31AM

end of the road wrote: »

they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.

It's good to know that committing the "worst act known to man" ( in your opinion) may not make someone criminally guilty of anything.

uptherebels · 07-03-2018 09:37AM

end of the road wrote: »

currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland.

Again more willful ignorance of the facts. The "moral" responsibility is met by exporting it abortions overseas.

pilly · 07-03-2018 09:46AM

I won't quote EOTR post cause theyre mostly uneducated illerate tribe.

However I have to comment the latest outrageous statement.

Abortion is now THE worst action taken against mankind.

I think of at least 10 more than that.

How amazing that this is allowed on respectable site.

NuMarvel · 07-03-2018 09:56AM

end of the road wrote: »

again with the wishful thinking with no basis in fact or reality.

That proverb about stones and glasshouses comes to mind.

end of the road wrote: »

they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.

EOTR: Abortion is the worst act known to man!!
Also EOTR: I'm not going to stop anyone travelling for an abortion because it might inconvenience other people.

Timberrrrrrrr · 07-03-2018 10:22AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

That proverb about stones and glasshouses comes to mind.

EOTR: Abortion is the worst act known to man!!
Also EOTR: I'm not going to stop anyone travelling for an abortion because it might inconvenience other people.

Yep, that's the same poster who once said the guards should baton charge women and children if they tried to prevent a Garth Brooks concert from going ahead! The moral compass is spinning like a windmill for that poster.

NuMarvel · 07-03-2018 10:23AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yep, that's the same poster who once said the guards should baton charge women and children if they tried to prevent a Garth Brooks concert from going ahead! The moral compass is spinning like a windmill for that poster.

Yeahbuhwhatnow?? :eek::eek:

Delirium · 07-03-2018 12:01PM

Latest on case that was before supreme court today:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/971338864127348736

Timberrrrrrrr · 07-03-2018 12:08PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yeahbuhwhatnow?? :eek::eek:

Back when the brooks concert was in doubt and croke park residents threatened to bkock the roads that was EOTR's solution to the protestors

Nick Park · 07-03-2018 12:25PM

Delirium wrote: »

Latest on case that was before supreme court today:

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/971338864127348736

That certainly clarifies what we will be voting on in the Referendum, doesn't it?

The case before the Supreme Court referred to an unborn child that was due to be born in three weeks time. The Supreme court has determined that such a child, 35 weeks into the pregnancy, has no Constitutional rights outside of the Eighth Amendment.

So we can forget all this talk about 12 weeks. We will be voting as to whether all unborn child, right up to the point of birth, should have the right to be born.

NuMarvel · 07-03-2018 12:37PM

Nick Park wrote: »

That certainly clarifies what we will be voting on in the Referendum, doesn't it?

The case before the Supreme Court referred to an unborn child that was due to be born in three weeks time. The Supreme court has determined that such a child, 35 weeks into the pregnancy, has no Constitutional rights outside of the Eighth Amendment.

So we can forget all this talk about 12 weeks. We will be voting as to whether all unborn child, right up to the point of birth, should have the right to be born.

I notice that you don't mention the woman's rights at all even though those will also be affected by the outcome of the referendum.

In any case though, it's more accurate to say that the referendum is about where we think the rights of the woman and the unborn should be set out, as opposed to what the rights will be. Many countries leave these matters to legislation as opposed to their constitutions, and we did the same ourselves up to 1983.

Whatever discussion may be had about what our abortion laws should be, I have yet to hear a valid argument as to why the rights of women and the unborn during pregnancy should be in our constitution.

....... · 07-03-2018 12:50PM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 07-03-2018 12:55PM

Nick Park wrote: »

That certainly clarifies what we will be voting on in the Referendum, doesn't it?

The case before the Supreme Court referred to an unborn child that was due to be born in three weeks time. The Supreme court has determined that such a child, 35 weeks into the pregnancy, has no Constitutional rights outside of the Eighth Amendment.

So we can forget all this talk about 12 weeks. We will be voting as to whether all unborn child, right up to the point of birth, should have the right to be born.

If that's true then we'll be implementing a more restrictive abortion policy if repeal fails? Women won't be allowed an abortion even when their life is in danger?

Right to travel will be revoked to stop any women who are attempting to travel for an abortion?

....... · 07-03-2018 01:03PM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 07-03-2018 01:10PM

Nick Park wrote: »

That certainly clarifies what we will be voting on in the Referendum, doesn't it?

The case before the Supreme Court referred to an unborn child that was due to be born in three weeks time. The Supreme court has determined that such a child, 35 weeks into the pregnancy, has no Constitutional rights outside of the Eighth Amendment.

So we can forget all this talk about 12 weeks. We will be voting as to whether all unborn child, right up to the point of birth, should have the right to be born.

You mean like all the other countries where there is no constitutional protection for the unborn and where they have 12 week limits too, like France or Italy?

It's a bad idea to set up a legal conflict of interest between the woman and her unborn.
Especially in the constitution.

Nick Park · 07-03-2018 01:17PM

Delirium wrote: »

If that's true then we'll be implementing a more restrictive abortion policy if repeal fails? Women won't be allowed an abortion even when their life is in danger?

Right to travel will be revoked to stop any women who are attempting to travel for an abortion?

My bad. What I meant to say was that we will be voting whether to remove the only Constitutional right to life of all children - right up to the point of birth.

volchitsa · 07-03-2018 01:22PM

Nick Park wrote: »

My bad. What I meant to say was that we will be voting whether to remove the only Constitutional right to life of all children - right up to the point of birth.

Are you suggesting that without such protection Ireland will have to allow healthy babies at term to be killed?

Can you tell us where this actually happens today, seeing as there must be only a handful of countries which have such protection?

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments