Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

This post has been deleted.

Where is this ‘up to birth’ thing coming from? Once again the only people saying that are pro life campaigners. Nobody else is even suggesting it. It’s not on the table.

This post has been deleted.

92% of all abortions happen before the 12th week. The other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth.

Those are facts. Why are thes people so allergic to facts and addicted to hysteria?

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Yes, France and Italy are actually very good examples. France initially brought in a 10-week limit for abortion on demand, but later liberalised its laws further. It now allows unborn children with Down Syndrome to be aborted at any stage of the pregnancy. 96% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted in France.

Italy permits abortions for conditions such as cleft palates. In one case, in 2010, a child was aborted for having a cleft lip and palate, was then left untended but was discovered to still be alive 20 hours after the abortion. The child (am I allowed to call it a 'child' - or will I be lectured for being unscientific?) lived another day .

Thank you for pointing them out as examples as to what we might expect in Ireland if we vote to remove the Eighth Amendment.

david75 wrote: »

92% of all abortions happen before the 12th week. The other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth.

Those are facts. Why are thes people so allergic to facts and addicted to hysteria?

I think you need to check your "facts". The treatment of conditions such as Down Syndrome and cleft palates in newborn children has obviously improved since you did your research.

My own daughter had a condition that is routinely used as a reason for abortion. She lived to be 4 years and 10 months.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park wrote: »

I think you need to check your "facts". The treatment of conditions such as Down Syndrome and cleft palates in newborn children has obviously improved since you did your research.

My own daughter had a condition that is routinely used as a reason for abortion. She lived to be 4 years and 10 months.

I have checked my facts. I posted them above.

Can you give me some info on your claim about abortion up to birth? I’m doubting its basis in fact

volchitsa

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, France and Italy are actually very good examples. France initially brought in a 10-week limit for abortion on demand, but later liberalised its laws further. It now allows unborn children with Down Syndrome to be aborted at any stage of the pregnancy. 96% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted in France.

Italy permits abortions for conditions such as cleft palates. In one case, in 2010, a child was aborted for having a cleft lip and palate, was then left untended but was discovered to still be alive 20 hours after the abortion. The child (am I allowed to call it a 'child' - or will I be lectured for being unscientific?) lived another day .

Thank you for pointing them out as examples as to what we might expect in Ireland if we vote to remove the Eighth Amendment.

No links, I wonder why.

What stage did France later liberalize to then? Birth? Or less?
My understanding of French law is that Downs would always have come under their "health" conditions, so I dont see how it answers my question which was about healthy babies. Including Downs is a choice the French made, not an obligation.

As for Italy, without a link it's impossible to say, but even if true, it is still not evidence that Ireland will have to allow healthy babies to be killed just before birth. UK guidelines state that a child born alive must be given all appropriate care, so negligence or malpractice can easily be prevented without constitutional protection - which is the only subject here.

But TBH going by the recent death of a young woman in Italy because of a miscarriage that needed to be terminated surgically, like Savita Hallapanavar, I'd be very dubious about your claim.

My impression of Italian hospitals is that many are run by religious orders and that finding a doctor who is not a conscientious objector - if only for his own career - is more likely to be the problem.

(Didnt prolife start a big campaign a few weeks back, with videos supposedly testifying about abortions, only for them to hastily delete them when the so called witnesses turned out to be lying? Your man Noel Pattern was one of them, he's an armed robber <snip>! https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/968527472810692608

So no prolife site links either please, theyve shown themselves to be liars.)

NuMarvel

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, France and Italy are actually very good examples. France initially brought in a 10-week limit for abortion on demand, but later liberalised its laws further. It now allows unborn children with Down Syndrome to be aborted at any stage of the pregnancy. 96% of unborn children diagnosed with Down Syndrome are aborted in France.

For clarity, when did France change its laws to allow abortion in cases of fetal disability/non-fatal abnormalities? And when was the 10 week timeframe increased to 12?

Nick Park wrote: »

Italy permits abortions for conditions such as cleft palates.

When did Italy introduce its current abortion laws and when did Italy change those laws to include such conditions?

Policy paper to include time period between abortion request and pill
Government sources insist measure is to assist medical professionals and women

Minister for Health Simon Harris will publish a policy paper this week outlining how the Government intends to legislate should article 40.3.3 be removed from the Constitution.

It is understood the 10-page document will commit to legislating for terminations “without specific indication” up to 12 weeks of pregnancy.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/policy-paper-to-include-time-period-between-abortion-request-and-pill-1.3417404

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My statement about my daughter's disability and death was in response to a false statement by another poster (who has not been averse to sharing his own personal tragedy in this thread btw). He had claimed that "92% of all abortions happen before the 12th week. The other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."

My daughter's condition can be detected by amniocentesis from 14 weeks onwards. She survived after birth for nearly five years, and other children with her condition have lived into their teenage years. So my comments were directly relevant to his post.

But thank you for being so compassionate.

It wasn’t a false statement Nick. Its a fact.

‘Ninety-two percent of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation and 81 percent at under ten weeks.’ Stats for 2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

These are facts nick. Actual facts and verified statistics. You’ll be saying the UK government made them up next.

david75 wrote: »

‘Ninety-two percent of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation and 81 percent at under ten weeks.’ Stats for 2016

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

These are facts nick. Actual facts and verified statistics. You’ll be saying the UK government made them up next.

No, I try to fact-check my statements carefully, so I wouldn't say such a thing unless I could provide evidence. You know, like the evidence you couldn't provide about those Mormons that die because they won't accept blood transfusions. :pac:

Can you point to, or quote verbatim, where it says in that link that the other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth?

Nick Park wrote: »

No, I try to fact-check my statements carefully, so I wouldn't say such a thing unless I could provide evidence. You know, like the evidence you couldn't provide about those Mormons that die because they won't accept blood transfusions. :pac:

Can you point to, or quote verbatim, where it says in that link that the other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth?

Can you provide any factual evidence or statistics showing that we are voting on abortion up to birth? I have asked you repeatedly now and you’ve yet to answer or provide any evidence?

david75 wrote: »

Can you provide any factual evidence or statistics showing that we are voting on abortion up to birth? I have asked you repeatedly now and you’ve yet to answer or provide any evidence?

Can you provide any evidence to where I've said we're voting on abortion up to birth? I would advise you to read carefully, and respond carefully to avoid further errors of fact.

While you're at it you could provide the evidence for those Mormons dying because of refusing blood transfusions? And, again, how you can justify the nonsensical and obviously bogus claim that "92% of all abortions happen before the 12th week. The other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."

What I have said about the referendum is that, based on the government's own press releases and reports, we will be voting on whether to remove the Constitutional right to life for all unborn children right up to the point of birth. I have also said that we will be voting to authorise the Oireachtas to legislate whatever it wants about abortion in the future (which, by definition, includes authorising them to legislate up to birth if they choose to do so).

This post has been deleted.

It’s smaller and smaller circles you’re going in and back-pedalling all the way.

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

Nick you are word salading here.

You keep insinuating that we are voting on allowing abortion up to birth.

Thank you. He’s been at it consistently and now completely back pedalling.

NuMarvel

Nick Park wrote: »

What I have said about the referendum is that, based on the government's own press releases and reports, we will be voting on whether to remove the Constitutional right to life for all unborn children right up to the point of birth. I have also said that we will be voting to authorise the Oireachtas to legislate whatever it wants about abortion in the future (which, by definition, includes authorising them to legislate up to birth if they choose to do so).

It also, by definition, includes authorising them to criminalise abortion completely. But we all know that neither scenario is remotely likely. This topic can get heated enough with resorting to appeals to extremes, so let's concentrate on what's likely.

And based on international and domestic experiences what's likely to happen post-repeal is the government will legislate in line with the recommendations of the Oireachtas Committee on the 8th. That will be it for the foreseeable future, barring unforeseen consequences. And unless there is considerable public support, there won't be any major departures (to expand or to restrict) from that legislation.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, you made a claim about me that you can't substantiate.

If I said that we're voting on abortion up until birth then it will be very easy to prove that using boards.ie's wonderful search and quote functions.

But if you can't produce such quotes then you should apologise. Lying about another poster's position, or ascribing stuff to them that they've never said, is, I understand subject to moderator action. (As opposed to simply lying about abortion statistics or Mormons).

My position has been consistent and clear. The Referendum is not about 12 weeks. The question on the ballot paper will not mention 12 weeks. It will propose to remove the Constitutional right to life of all the unborn (irrespective of stage of pregnancy) and will authorise the Oireachtas to legislate whatever it chooses on abortion (irrespective of stage of pregnancy).

I don't believe that 12-weeks is where it will stop. But I have never stated that it will result in abortion on demand up to birth (even though that is technically possible).

So. You should either post the quotes where I said any such thing, or apologise for falsely putting words in my mouth. That is no word salading, or going in decreasing circles. I am standing over my words, and I'm asking you to do the same.

If I make a statement hat turns out to be incorrect I will gladly apologise and admit that I was wrong. Why can't you do the same?

Nick Park wrote: »

Actually, it isn't likely to state any such thing at all. All the reports and indications are that there will be nothing whatsoever in the Referendum wording about 12 weeks.

The referendum will ask us to delete the clause in our Constitution that affords the right to life to unborn children, and to replace it with a clause saying "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies."
No gestation limit there.

The government says it initially only intends to introduce legislation pertaining to 12 weeks - but that is a politician's promise, not a Constitutional guarantee. And, of course, the door is then open for this, or any other government, to introduce any further abortion legislation whatsoever with no Constitutional hindrances.

Like this one right here?

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in general we don't have the choice to kill other human beings. there is no reason why this should be different for the unborn and pregnant women. the choice to kill other human beings is not required in ireland unless it's for extreme reasons.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

david75 wrote: »

Thank you. He’s been at it consistently and now completely back pedalling.

this never happened.

david75 wrote: »

Like this one right here?

No, that one does not say anything remotely like what you tried to ascribe to me. It states simple facts.

1. The Referendum will not mention 12 weeks anywhere.
2. There will (according to government sources) be an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.
3. A politicians' promise is considerably less cast-iron than a Constitutional guarantee.
4. Such a repeal and replace opens the door for any government, present or future, to introduce subsequent abortion legislation (something many Repeal campaigners are already demanding) without any constitutional hindrance.

All four points are factual, and none of them claim that we are "voting on abortion up until birth" or say that such is likely to happen.

Come on, either substantiate your accusation against me or be man enough to admit you were wrong and apologise.

I'm asking you again