Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

david75 · 08-03-2018 12:14AM

J C wrote: »

Why is embolding (and italics and underlining) available for use with posts?

They are obviously there to be used for emphasis and to aid clarity ... and that is how I use them.

The fact that I'm effectivley making my points may be 'getting up your nose' ... but this is no reason to condemn me for it.

You'll be accusing me next, of 'using big words that you can't understand' ... if you keep on going down this route!!

Oh dear.
That is actually a lamentable and lame response.

Keep bolding Jc. Go for it. It’s realky doing great work for you.

Nick Park · 08-03-2018 12:23AM

david75 wrote: »

Here ye the facts he’s asked for in his post. It’s my third time posting them. It’s getting repetitive

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

There's just one problem here. That pdf does not, anywhere, support your untruthful claim that all abortions after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."

We can all see that isn't true. Stevie Wonder could see it isn't true. You obviously can't cite anywhere in that PDF that supports such an obviously untruthful claim.

Here you are again stating things as facts. But you then go on to say it’s ‘telegraphing’??

It can’t be both Nick. Which is it??

It is a fact that the Referendum question will not contain any reference to 12 weeks. Every political commentators knows that to be the truth.

If you think otherwise, then please cite one reputable source that says the that the Referendum question will mention 12 weeks. Just one, that's all.

volchitsa · 08-03-2018 12:28AM

J C wrote: »

Paedophile sex tourists are engaged in an activity that is illegal in all juristictions ... and the 2003 Act in the UK was amended after enactment to avoid predators escaping on a technicality in relation to the exact legality, locally of what they got up to while abroad. The standard is now correctly set at what is illegal in Britain, in regard to sex crimes comitted abroad.

There is no legal comparison between sex crime anywhere ... and abortion that is freely and legally available in Europe ... and therefore a legal service under the laws of many countries.
European law allows free movement of people to avail of lawful services within the EU (and abortion is such as service) ... European Law doesn't allow people to engage in criminality, like child abuse, or other sex crime anywhere.

... so your post is a complete legal 'red herring' .... because your suggested criminalistion of women who have abortions abroad, would be totally illegal under European Law ... as well as being totally unjust ... by criminalising somebody for doing something that is legally allowed (by statute law no less) in the country being visited while abroad.

Sex crimes aren't legally allowed by statute law anywhere?

You're 'grasping at straws' on this one, I'm afraid.

No, it doesn't have to be illegal abroad (the bit in bold). Where is the article of law that says anything about what the foreign law says in that link I gave you? (Ans: Nowhere)

Maybe I should explain, you seem to be finding this challenging.

A British man goes to Seoul and has sex with a 14 year old prostitute.
He has committed a crime because even though the age of consent is 13 in SK he is guilty of child abuse under section 72 of the Sex Crimes Act in the UK as though he had committed the same act in the UK. It doesn't matter that the act was legal in Seoul, it is illegal for him.

It's as simple as that.

They brought that law in to stop British men going to countries to abuse children in places where there may be no age of consent, so child abuse would be legal. The parents would sell the child's services, as they had a right to.

In Ireland, OTOH, we brought in a law to allow Irish people to go to other countries to abort pregnancies, because it seemed to be illegal and we didn't want that. That was a choice the country made.

You can deny it all you want, those are the facts.

J C · 08-03-2018 12:40AM

david75 wrote: »

Here ye the facts he’s asked for in his post. It’s my third time posting them. It’s getting repetitive

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

Some notable statistics allright:-

Quote:-
"For abortions at 22 weeks or beyond, feticide is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists prior to the evacuation of the uterus to stop the fetal heart. In 2016, of the 1,508 abortions performed at 22 weeks and over, 48% were reported as preceded by a feticide and a further 45% were performed by a method whereby the fetal heart is stopped as part of the procedure. Eleven (0.7%) of abortions at
22 weeks or beyond were confirmed as having no feticide. For the remaining 89 cases (6%), at the time of publication, the Department of Heath had not been able to confirm whether feticide had been performed."

"Congenital malformations were reported as the principal medical condition in nearly half (46%; 1,471) of the 3,208 cases undertaken under ground E. The most commonly reported malformations were of the nervous system (21% of all ground E cases; 680) and the cardiovascular system (9%; 288). Chromosomal abnormalities were reported as the principal medical condition for just over a third (37%; 1,187) of ground E cases. Down’s syndrome was the most commonly reported chromosomal abnormality (22%; 706). Other conditions account for 17% of ground E abortions, this includes cases where the fetus was affected by maternal factors, hydrops fetalis, family history of heritable disorders, and Cystic Hygroma."

david75 · 08-03-2018 12:43AM

Nick Park wrote: »

There's just one problem here. That pdf does not, anywhere, support your untruthful claim that all abortions after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."

We can all see that isn't true. Stevie Wonder could see it isn't true. You obviously can't cite anywhere in that PDF that supports such an obviously untruthful claim.

It is a fact that the Referendum question will not contain any reference to 12 weeks. Every political commentators knows that to be the truth.

If you think otherwise, then please cite one reputable source that says the that the Referendum question will mention 12 weeks. Just one, that's all.

I never said it would. I said and backed up that 92% of all abortions in the uk happen within 13 weeks. 81% happen before 10 weeks.

You have repeatedly tried to ignore that yet they are the facts That relate directly to Ireland as the UK is where Irish women go for abortions.

If they don’t mention 12 weeks gestation in the referendum? Are you sure about that? If so then what are you complaining about?

Or!
Are you suggesting the text on the ballot sheet will actually suggest abortion on demand? You have been consistently and repeatedly inferring that’s what will happen. Somehow you’ve been calling it fact the whole time.

So is that’s what will happen? Please share your clairvoyance with us and give us an insight

david75 · 08-03-2018 12:46AM

Oh look. 12 weeks

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

volchitsa · 08-03-2018 12:51AM

What is your point about feticide, J_C? These are not healthy babies being killed, you do get that, don't you?

These are severely disabled fetuses that are almost at term, and so may be born alive, but those that do survive birth will die within minutes or at most, hours or days after that.

Feticide is proposed purely to avoid the trauma of the baby dying shortly after its birth, possibly in significant pain. Not to kill a healthy baby. Those are grounds E, which is why they may be past the 24 week limit, but they are not healthy babies.

david75 · 08-03-2018 12:52AM

J C wrote: »

Some notable statistics allright:-

Quote:-
"For abortions at 22 weeks or beyond, feticide is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists prior to the evacuation of the uterus to stop the fetal heart. In 2016, of the 1,508 abortions performed at 22 weeks and over, 48% were reported as preceded by a feticide and a further 45% were performed by a method whereby the fetal heart is stopped as part of the procedure. Eleven (0.7%) of abortions at
22 weeks or beyond were confirmed as having no feticide. For the remaining 89 cases (6%), at the time of publication, the Department of Heath had not been able to confirm whether feticide had been performed."

"Congenital malformations were reported as the principal medical condition in nearly half (46%; 1,471) of the 3,208 cases undertaken under ground E. The most commonly reported malformations were of the nervous system (21% of all ground E cases; 680) and the cardiovascular system (9%; 288). Chromosomal abnormalities were reported as the principal medical condition for just over a third (37%; 1,187) of ground E cases. Down’s syndrome was the most commonly reported chromosomal abnormality (22%; 706). Other conditions account for 17% of ground E abortions, this includes cases where the fetus was affected by maternal factors, hydrops fetalis, family history of heritable disorders, and Cystic Hygroma."

Well done! You read actual facts!
Now read my last post where our government is limiting it to 12 weeks! Yay!

J C · 08-03-2018 01:12AM

volchitsa wrote: »

No, it doesn't have to be illegal abroad (the bit in bold). Where is the article of law that says anything about what the foreign law says in that link I gave you? (Ans: Nowhere)

Maybe I should explain, you seem to be finding this challenging.

A British man goes to Seoul and has sex with a 14 year old prostitute.
He has committed a crime because even though the age of consent is 13 in SK he is guilty of child abuse under section 72 of the Sex Crimes Act in the UK as though he had committed the same act in the UK. It doesn't matter that the act was legal in Seoul, it is illegal for him.

It's as simple as that.

They brought that law in to stop British men going to countries to abuse children in places where there may be no age of consent, so child abuse would be legal. The parents would sell the child's services, as they had a right to.

In Ireland, OTOH, we brought in a law to allow Irish people to go to other countries to abort pregnancies, because it seemed to be illegal and we didn't want that. That was a choice the country made.

You can deny it all you want, those are the facts.

There is no legal comparison between sleazy sex with exploited under-age people in a third world country ... and women availing of a lawful service (abortion) in another EU member state ... and to state otherwise is quite disengenuous.

Your claim that women who go to England for abortions are equivalent to paedophile predators who go to Thialand to abuse under-age boys and girls is quite outrageous IMO.

J C · 08-03-2018 01:19AM

david75 wrote: »

Well done! You read actual facts!
Now read my last post where our government is limiting it to 12 weeks! Yay!

Where is our govenment limiting abortion to 12 weeks only?

It is proposed to limit it to 12 weeks for abortions on demand ... the PLDPA already has no gestational age limit for the abortions specified under it ... and it is clear that where a mothers health is at risk that the 12 week limit will not apply ... if 'they follow suit' on this, with the PLDPA ... this could also have no gestational age limit.

... and in any event, the 'mothers health' ... is a very subjective grounds ... and was the enabler of abortion on effective demand up to 24 weeks and beyond in other countries.

david75 · 08-03-2018 01:31AM

You’re ignoring what is being said by our government yet you were posting quotes from Leo only a while back.

Odd that.

J C · 08-03-2018 01:34AM

volchitsa wrote: »

What is your point about feticide, J_C? These are not healthy babies being killed, you do get that, don't you?

These are severely disabled fetuses that are almost at term, and so may be born alive, but those that do survive birth will die within minutes or at most, hours or days after that.

Feticide is proposed purely to avoid the trauma of the baby dying shortly after its birth, possibly in significant pain. Not to kill a healthy baby. Those are grounds E, which is why they may be past the 24 week limit, but they are not healthy babies.

Firstly, in 2016, 97% of abortions (180,794) were undertaken under ground C which is effectively on demand abortion and available up to 24 weeks in England.

Secondly, even if they are 'not healthy babies' that are mostly aborted in late abortions, this doesn't make it right ... arguably, it makes it morally worse, if anything.
These 'not healthy babies' as you call, them included 706 Down's Syndrome babies in 2016 ... and even a 'family history of heritable disorders' was apparently sufficient reason to give an unborn child a lethal injection into the heart ... and abort it after 24 weeks. It is also incorrect to say that they will die within minutes, hours or days ... most will live years ... some for relatively normal lifespans, if they're not killed by lethal injection or 'feticided'.

Quote:-
"Other conditions account for 17% of ground E abortions, this includes cases where the fetus was affected by maternal factors, hydrops fetalis, family history of heritable disorders, and Cystic Hygroma. "

J C · 08-03-2018 01:41AM

david75 wrote: »

You’re ignoring what is being said by our government yet you were posting quotes from Leo only a while back.

Odd that.

I have just posted on what is being said by government ... proposed limit of 12 weeks for abortions on demand ...
... and what has been done already by government ... the PLDPA already has no gestational age limit for the abortions specified under it.

... and Leo is quite correct when he says that fetus is the scientific term for baby.

Delirium · 08-03-2018 09:36AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

MOD NOTE

Infracted for that response to Nicks personal testimony that was a rebuttal to another posters claim.

It's about his dead daughter. It shouldn't be too much of an ask that posters show some sensitivity to such a post.

Thanks for your attention.

volchitsa · 08-03-2018 09:38AM

J C wrote: »

There is no legal comparison between sleazy sex with exploited under-age people in a third world country ... and women availing of a lawful service (abortion) in another EU member state ... and to state otherwise is quite disengenuous.

Your claim that women who go to England for abortions are equivalent to paedophile predators who go to Thialand to abuse under-age boys and girls is quite outrageous IMO.

As I'm sure you know really, I'm discussing how our law considers abortion, not defending that view. Seeing as I'm arguing for repeal, unlike you.

But since we have a possible 14 year sentence for abortion, and since preserving a woman's health cannot be a reason for allowing an abortion, I think it's fair enough to say that our law, and those who don't want the 8th removed, believe abortion to be a very serious crime, the moral equivalent of murdering a baby.

Well, child murder is comparable to child sex abuse in terms of how serious it is, isn't it? So why are you minimising the seriousness of abortion here, as though it wer the equivalent of smoking a reefer in Amsterdam?

And if it is so minor, why are you defending a law that can lead to a woman's health being destroyed because the alternative is abortion? Or to a dying woman like Michelle Harte being robbed of the last months of her life?

(I suppose you thought it was a clever dodge to avoid replying by pretending to think I was defending the view that abortion is a serious crime, comparable to child sex abuse, but I think such transparent dishonesty only damages whatever case you have. It is obviously a very weak case if these repeated dodges are the best you can do. I dont expect a frank answer this time either.)

Delirium · 08-03-2018 09:44AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't remember a front-seat mod asking him any such thing? But I'm open to correction and will happily admit my error if someone can point to such a request.

J C wrote: »

Embolding is used routinely for added clarity and emphasis in written English.

There is nothing wrong with using embolding ... and if it is ever determined that there is, then the boards should disable the B/U feature on all of its posts.

Please feel free to use embolding yourselves ... the clarity of the 'walls of text' in some of the posts would be greatly improved by doing so.

You're complaining about my use of embolding, while campaigning for the killing of unborn children in abortion processes that are are so horrific, that descriptions or images of them are banned on the Boards ... and in polite company.

It's something that people dare not speak of or link to, such is the horror of what is involved.

... and you're fretting about my correct use of embolding.

'Sweating the small stuff' doesn't even begin to describe this behaviour.

'Straining out a gnat, and swallowing a camel' ... comes close to describing it ... allright.

MOD NOTE

@Nick Yes, I've already asked JC to dial the bolding as there have been many complaints about the readability of his posts due to over-use of the bold feature.

@JC It would be appreciated if you could rein in the bolding. If you're bolding every second sentence in a post then the bolding is redundant.

And on a general note, please use the report button instead of back-seat moderating if you see someone ignoring a mod instruction.

Thanks for your attention.

Delirium · 08-03-2018 09:48AM

J C wrote: »

There is no legal comparison between sleazy sex with exploited under-age people in a third world country ... and women availing of a lawful service (abortion) in another EU member state ... and to state otherwise is quite disengenuous.

Your claim that women who go to England for abortions are equivalent to paedophile predators who go to Thialand to abuse under-age boys and girls is quite outrageous IMO.

But if abortion is the killing of an innocent child, why doesn't it not warrant the same legal view as someone travelling to molest children?

How does geography remove your moral responsibility to the unborn considering you view it as a human being from conception?

Nick Park · 08-03-2018 12:58PM

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

@Nick Yes, I've already asked JC to dial the bolding as there have been many complaints about the readability of his posts due to over-use of the bold feature.

In that case I withdraw my last comment unreservedly. And I will make note of the rules concerning typefaces.

david75 · 08-03-2018 01:21PM

That was quick

The Government has signed off on a referendum bill to allow a vote on the 8th amendment: bit.ly/2oTeHrR #8thref

mariemoon · 08-03-2018 04:33PM

I am a Cristian and I am pro-life for myself but I think that my opinion should not affect other people decisions. So I just prefer not get involved.
If it is going to be legal or not, it does not really matter, because it was always and will be available in a clandestine hospital or in someone's basement.
Have you ever thought why woman do it?

Abortion is not the answer.

Women deserve much more than abortion.
For centuries, society has been telling us that if we get pregnant outside marriage we are not good, we are promiscuous and a disgrace to our parents. If we are a teen mother, our future is ruined and society will be looking down at us. Even in the church, they say those things.

Abortion will just hide the real problem. Think about how many mothers in all those years that really wanted to have their children but they choose abortion because society pressured them.
If abortion was legal, society would be telling us that we should do an abortion because if we're a teen mother our future is ruined or if we're a single mother our future is also ruined.

Women should be free to have their children without being judged, that why a lot of women choose abortion because they don't want to feel shame or have that "problem" in their lives. "Problem" because society keeps telling us that it's a problem.

It is not a problem. It is Life, women bring life.

The real issue a lot bigger.
Even in the Catholic church, the majority of people attending to masses and helping out in the church are women, but it is run by men. Don't u think that there is a problem there as well?

Love and shame are locking women.

david75 · 08-03-2018 04:56PM

Where toceven start with that.

We do not live in a society that forces women to have abortions. I don’t know where you’re from but thats simply not the case here.
Very much the opposite in fact.

Oh wait. New account with 7 posts.
Says it all.

....... · 08-03-2018 05:00PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 08-03-2018 05:10PM

david75 wrote: »

Oh wait. New account with 7 posts.
Says it all.

it says nothing. we were all a new account at one stage. unless you came on here with your post count at an amount you believe to be exceptible? don't think so. try harder next time.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

exactly, hence there is no requirement to facilitate those people by providing them with an abortion. especially a free abortion. their situation is not a medical issue, it's a lifestyle issue. we have enough lifestyle issues causing us problems currently.

....... · 08-03-2018 05:18PM

This post has been deleted.

mariemoon · 08-03-2018 05:25PM

david75 wrote: »

Where toceven start with that.

We do not live in a society that forces women to have abortions. I don’t know where you’re from but thats simply not the case here.
Very much the opposite in fact.

Oh wait. New account with 7 posts.
Says it all.

Well I've been in boards since 2015, but I don't really post stuff and its not your concern.

First of all you are not a woman. You did not grow up in fear of getting pregnant or raped.

mariemoon · 08-03-2018 05:32PM

....... wrote: »

What about women who never want to have children, like me?

Or women who already have enough children to care for so dont want another one?

Or women who already have children but due to medical issues suffered in their last pregnancy they dont want to go through another pregnancy?

I think you are completely wrong in your thoughts. Women are not having abortions because they dont want to feel shame or have a problem. Many women simply choose abortion because having a child does not suit their circumstances or life plan.

I don't condemned abortion in case of special circumstances for example in case of rape or if mother's life is at risk, it really should be available.

But terminating a life because of irresponsibility or because it doesn't suit someone's lifestyle is bit selfish.
Condoms and pills are available

end of the road · 08-03-2018 05:41PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

there is a need for abortion services for genuine medical reasons only. there is no need for abortion services for lifestyle reasons, it's a want only. a want which there is no obligation to facilitate. any money that would be spent on it is already being spent on pressing matters and should not be diverted to abortion on demand.
pro-life don't engage in misinformation and lies as there is nothing to gain from it.

smacl · 08-03-2018 05:42PM

end of the road wrote: »

exactly, hence there is no requirement to facilitate those people by providing them with an abortion. especially a free abortion. their situation is not a medical issue, it's a lifestyle issue. we have enough lifestyle issues causing us problems currently.

Why would cost have any bearing on the matter? Your implication here is that we should treat women differently based on their financial means. Is it somehow more reasonable to only expect poorer people to carry the burden of unwanted pregnancy?

Delirium · 08-03-2018 05:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

there is a need for abortion services for genuine medical reasons only. there is no need for abortion services for lifestyle reasons, it's a want only. a want which there is no obligation to facilitate. any money that would be spent on it is already being spent on pressing matters and should not be diverted to abortion on demand.
pro-life don't engage in misinformation and lies as there is nothing to gain from it.

Not so. Story that's going around this week.

Gorugeen Fingleton writes:
You may recall those ‘My Abortion’ story billboards. The Noel featured turns out is a fake. Save8.ie have since deleted his story (this is the cached page)
Considerable (well, not really. It was pretty straightforward) leg work went into proving this guy is not a nurse, has a city and guilds cert that appears altered (provided to us by Pro-Life activist John McGurk), has lied about his experience, is a self confessed convicted armed robber and self-professed gun runner…

Instead of doing the sensible thing and throwing him under a bus ( OMG he lied to us) John McGurk and Save the 8th are claiming Noel left the campaign because of bullying by repealers.

This was either a very clumsy attempt at duping folks or it was incompetence on a grand scale. Either way I for one hope they continue with such own goals. Its awfully entertaining!

Source

david75 · 08-03-2018 05:50PM

EOTR you’re not personally responsible for the entire PLC I know but you really should make yourself aware of what’s going on under the PLC banner before you make statements saying they don’t engage in lies and misinformation.

See delirium’s post above. And that’s just one guy. There are many other instances this very week.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments