nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

recedite

In Saudi, women are treated differently to men.
In Ireland, pregnant women are treated differently to non-pregnant women and men.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

...2. the 8th likely has prevented abortions due to the expence of traveling to procure one in the uk...

How desperate must one be to find something good about the 8th that they have to use the poor and marginalised not being able to access a service others can as a measure of success.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

Please explain in what way Irish abortion laws give women more equality to those of Saudi Arabia.

we allow abortion where it is the ultimate necessary evil and we could likely extend the allowence to other necessary cases.
saudi on the other hand sentences women to death for abortion and miscarrage from what i can gather. in fact they stone women to death just for being women.

david75

Quite the utopia than?
We don’t stone women we just make sure they know their place which is as second class citizens and incubators.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Quite the utopia than?
We don’t stone women we just make sure they know their place which is as second class citizens and incubators.

nope wrong. women are not second class citizens in ireland. women are not seen as incubators but women. ireland is one of the greatist countries on earth. we have our problems but we are better then most other countries and i'm glad i was born here and am a citizen of here, rather then the uk or elsewhere.

david75

can you prove you’re not actually Donald trump posting from the loo on boards for the laugh?

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

we allow abortion where it is the ultimate necessary evil and we could likely extend the allowence to other necessary cases.
saudi on the other hand sentences women to death for abortion and miscarrage from what i can gather. in fact they stone women to death just for being women.

Yeah, we only put them in prison for 14 years.

And you still haven't explained how abortion law gives women more equality compared to Saudi Arabia.

From Saudi Arabia wiki page:

Abortion in Saudi Arabia

Abortion in Saudi Arabia is generally illegal with only a very narrow exception.[1] An abortion is only legal if the abortion will save the woman's life or if the pregnancy gravely endangers the woman's physical or mental health

Sounds remarkably like what we have here.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

Yeah, we only put them in prison for 14 years.

And you still haven't explained how abortion law gives women more equality compared to Saudi Arabia.

From Saudi Arabia wiki page:

Sounds remarkably like what we have here.

We dont put them to death which really adds to the idea of saving the mothers life...but thats for the Muslims to answer on their forum.:pac:

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

It would seem that the GPs objections aren't on moral grounds about women being able to access abortion, but about practical issues around training and resources for providing the service. Similar issues were raised by one of the GP unions.

These are certainly important issues for consideration in the development of the service after repeal, but the key issue for voters to consider when it comes to vote on the 8th is that a clear majority of GPs polled favour repeal.

Its more like classical morality shifting ... 'I won't do it myself ... but I'll let others do it.'
It's the same as saying, I would never drink and drive myself ... but I don't mind if other people do so.

If it involves the killing of Human Beings and you wouldn't do it yourself, you cannot morally justify others doing it.

There is both a moral and a practical reason for adopting this principle when it comes to killing ... the moral reason is obvious ... don't do (or allow others to do), what you wouldn't want to be done unto yourself ... and the practical reason for doing so ... is that you could become the victim of the killing that you tolerate others engaging in.
Once a 'culture of death' becomes established in a society ... then nobody is safe ... if we start killing unborn children because they have some deficiency, like cleft palate or Downs Syndrome ... then we shouldn't be surprised if we are told that we will be killed, to make a hospital bed available to some more 'deserving' case ... because we have a serious illness that has a terminal prognosis or for which significant medical resourses are required. We may not even be told ... the medical protocols may simply mandate that hydration or intensive care may be withdrawn, from us in these circumstances.

GPs will also have to take into account that they may not be able to 'opt out' of abortion, if it is introduced, without significant affects on their careers ... or possibly worse, if it became regarded as malpractice for doctors not to prescribe abortion pills, for a woman who asks for them.
... so GPs may be the one group in society who may not actually be able to not do it themselves, if abortion is introduced. It's called being 'hoist upon your own petard', if some GPs support repeal of the 8th ... but then refuse to prescrible abortion pills for conscience reasons.

david75

Did anyone see Louise o Neill on the late late last night?

Shots fired

uptherebels

Delirium wrote: »

If you read the article, why didn't call JC on their obvious cherry-picking of the article?

For someone who recently defended the honesty of pro-life advocates, it seems contradictory to gloss over that clear case of misinformation.

Careful now this is the same user who has never contradicted themselves in all their years on boards;)

uck51js9zml2yt

uptherebels wrote: »

Careful now this is the same user who has never contradicted themselves in all their years on boards;)

Perhaps I can answer this one ( the background story not necessarily the quoted post) **by saying that personally I'm against repeal.
That doesn't mean I have anything to do with other groups or campaigns.
I won't defend them when they are right, nor am I responsible for them if they are wrong or are selective in their communications.
I may however hold a similar opinion at times band that the only point of convergence.

** Should have quoted Delerium really

J C

Delirium wrote: »

If you read the article, why didn't call JC on their obvious cherry-picking of the article?

For someone who recently defended the honesty of pro-life advocates, it seems contradictory to gloss over that clear case of misinformation.

I did no 'cherry picking' ... I simply quoted the headline and the first paragraph of the Independent Article ... which accurately summarised the position of GPs on providing abortion pills.
I also posted a link to the article in my original post ... so anybody, who wanted to could read the entire article ... so I wasn't hiding anything.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

The view of GPs on repeal of the 8th is a different matter.

... and I have covered the hypocracy of their position on this in my previous post ... as well as the danger it represents to their position on not supplying abortion pills, if the 8th is repealed.

I don't buy the idea that they won't provide the pills due to training requirements. I was listening to a doctor on radio the other day and he said that the training requirements for prescribing abortion pills could be done in an afternoon by a GP on a continuous professsional develpoment course.

... I think that many doctors simply don't want to be involved with abortion ... and the GPs who are in favour of repeal but opposed to personally taking part in abortions, are playing a dangerous personal game by advocating for the introduction of abortion ... which may seriously disadvantage them professionally, if it is introduced and they refuse to prescribe abortion pills, for conscience reasons.

J C

Other doctors have a coherent attitude to both repeal of the 8th and their participation in abortion ... i.e they say no to both.

Here is a doctor who will be voting no to repealing the 8th ... and this is her view of what is going on in Ireland from the perspective of doctors with a conscientious objection to abortion on demand:-

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/analysis/one-doctor-reveals-why-she-will-be-voting-no-on-proposed-changes-to-law-on-abortion-827729.html

Quote;-
"Then there is the fact that a great many of us, myself included, simply could not in good conscience administer a drug to a healthy young woman with a healthy pregnancy that would cause her to lose her child. I did not study medicine so that I could end life, and I know that I am not alone in this.

Last week, Dr Emmit Kerins, President of the National Association of General Practitioners, which represents some 2,000 GPs said: “for the Minister to suggest that our professionshould lead out an abortion service without consultation with our member GPs is an affront to our profession and could pose yet another strain on the provision of general practice healthcare services”.

GPs have not been asked our view on this law, in either an opinion poll or by the Government that would introduce it. This is an extraordinary oversight that should alarm the public.

Just two months ago, on December 12th — the same day that the Oireachtas Committee launched its recommendations to legalise abortion “without restriction” for the first 12 weeks — the results of a major investigation into the safety of women in and around childbirth was published by Maternal Death Enquiry Ireland, an independent enquiry operated by University College Cork.

It found that maternal death was “extremely rare” and that Ireland was a very safe place for a woman to have a baby, safer than either the Britain or the US where abortion is freely available.

The facts show that the Eighth Amendment has not hampered doctors in providing life-saving medical interventions for women, despite unfounded claims to the contrary.

In the debate to date, at the Citizen’s Assembly, the Oireachtas Committee, and in the media, the public has mostly heard the views of medics who support repeal.

This is not representative of the diverse views amongst medical practitioners in Ireland and is not helpful in ensuring the public understand that women are safe and entitled to any life-saving interventions they need under the Eighth.

The Government says it is committed to the welfare of women, but it has proposed a law that is simply unworkable for doctor and patient alike.

Amongst colleagues, the assumption has been that this Government is simply so eager to get the pro-choice lobby off it’s back that it has given them everything they wanted without considering the consequences. It is hard to look at what has been proposed and come to any other conclusion.

Doctors are united in their concern on this matter. We are deeply worried about the proposed law, and that is why this doctor, for one, will be voting against the referendum."

J C

Please read the extract below from the original Hippocratic Oath ... which dates from the 4th Century BC Pagan Greece:-

Quote:-
"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art."

Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming less-civilised, as time goes on.
Certainly, the current pressure to introduce abortion on demand ... and assisted suicide, indicates that we are becoming less-enlightened than the ancient Greeks.

Quote Wikippedia:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. The Oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today."

... you could say that allright ... except that the principles are no longer held to be of paramount significance, by some societies!!

... and we are all the more vulnerable, when we get sick ... as a result.

david75

Same oath didn’t help Savita and countless others.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Same oath didn’t help Savita and countless others.

There aren't 'countless others' ... Savita died due to complications from a septic miscarriage ... and that was a one-off tragedy, in Ireland.
The PLDPA has now clarified the position on abortion when a mothers life is at risk ... but there will always be people who die in hospital for all kinds of reasons ... including situations where everyone is wiser after the event.

Timberrrrrrrr

You know we can read those for ourselves without the ridiculous use of the bolding function right?

You claim it's for highlighting parts of the post you deem pertinent but to be honest it makes me just skim past your posts when you go overboard as you have just done.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

JC carded for ignoring mod requests to stop with the over use of the bold feature

J C

david75 wrote: »

Same oath didn’t help Savita and countless others.

The 'countless others' that the Hypocratic Oath hasn't helped, are the hundreds of millions of unborn babies, that have been aborted ... over 1.4 billion abortions worldwide since 1980 ... and the death toll continues:-

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

... and BTW, because of the 8th ... there was over a quarter of a million less abortions in Ireland during this time.

volchitsa

J C wrote: »

Please read the extract below from the original Hippocratic Oath ... which dates from the 4th Century BC Pagan Greece:-

Quote:-
"I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art."

Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming less-civilised, as time goes on.
Certainly, the current pressure to introduce abortion on demand ... and assisted suicide, indicates that we are becoming less-enlightened than the ancient Greeks.

Quote Wikippedia:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
The Hippocratic Oath is an oath historically taken by physicians. It is one of the most widely known of Greek medical texts. In its original form, it requires a new physician to swear, by a number of healing gods, to uphold specific ethical standards. The Oath is the earliest expression of medical ethics in the Western world, establishing several principles of medical ethics which remain of paramount significance today."

This Hippocratic oath mythologizing again. Your own link says that it banned surgery (use of the knife) so hardly something to be copied directly.

Not only that, the link also says : "The Oath's prohibition of abortion is also not found in contemporary medical texts. The Hippocratic text On the Nature of the Child contains a description of an abortion, without any implication that it was morally wrong,[13] and descriptions of abortifacient medications are numerous in the ancient medical literature.[14] "

So not all that clearcut at all then.

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

This Hippocratic oath mythologizing again. .

No mythologizing ... just the bare facts ... including a direct quote from the original Hippocratic Oath.

volchitsa wrote: »

Your own link says that it banned surgery (use of the knife) so hardly something to be copied directly.

You are wrong about this ... the oath banned physicians from using the knife i.e. surgery ... but it mandated referral to specialist surgeons, when appropriate ... exactly like happens today.

Quote:-
"I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein."
(Emboldening to draw attention to the part you previously 'missed'.)

Surgeons, historically, weren't medical doctors (or physicians) ... historically they were just neat users of cutting instruments like knives and razors. Many were barbers, and that is why the 'barbers pole' today is a spiral of white and red.
http://broughttolife.sciencemuseum.org.uk/broughttolife/people/barbersurgeons

Today surgeons are also medically qualified ... but they continue the historically 'lay' aspect of surgery, by referring to themselves as Mr. Ms. etc. ... rather than Dr.
Surgeons also no longer cut hair (in their day job, anyway) !!:)

volchitsa wrote: »

Not only that, the link also says : "The Oath's prohibition of abortion is also not found in contemporary medical texts. The Hippocratic text On the Nature of the Child contains a description of an abortion, without any implication that it was morally wrong,[13] and descriptions of abortifacient medications are numerous in the ancient medical literature.[14] "

So not all that clearcut at all then.

The Hippocratic Oath was quite clear on medical abortion ... it banned physicians from having anything to do with it.
Quote :-
"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion."
(Emboldening to draw attention to the part you seem to have previously 'missed'.)

Interestingly, as we have already discussed, modern physicians in Ireland, just like their their ancient Greek antecedents, are similarly inclined to have nothing to do with medical abortion pills (or pessaries), ... with only 15 % of GPs saying that they would provide abortion pills, if the 8th is repealed.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html
Quote:-
"Nearly seven in 10 of the 497 GPs who voted in a closed doctors' forum said they would not be involved in medical abortions.

Around 15.7pc said they would provide the service and 16.1pc were "unsure".

Another interesting aspect of my quote from the Oath, is the juxtaposition of the ban on assisted suicide, doctor led euthanasia and abortion.
The ancient Greeks wisely knew that the 'culture of death' doesn't confine itself to killing people of any particular age ... and if it is countenanced, it will spread its tentacles to ultimately include everybody in its grip.
Quote :-
"Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion."

david75

Great stuff in the times. For both sides. Facts and explanations of everything in and around the referendum and our history on it.

https://t.co/b12qVEXGx6?amp=1

david75

THAT article covers all European countries abortion laws and I don’t see ‘abortion on ddemand up to birth’ on a single one of them.

Strange that.

J C

david75 wrote: »

THAT article covers all European countries abortion laws and I don’t see ‘abortion on demand up to birth’ on a single one of them.

Strange that.

I think you may have missed the add-ons to the 'abortion on demand' with limited gestation length in each country.

For example, first up was Belgium, with 12 weeks on demand abortion plus "Abortions are allowed at any stage later in pregnancy if two physicians agree there is a serious risk to the health of the mother or that the child has an "extremely serious and incurable disease".

Three things to note about these add-on abortions :-

1. They are right up to term at nine months ... even though the baby is viable from 6 months ... and therefore are a form of de facto infanticide, when performed after 24 weeks.

2. A 'serious risk to the health of the woman' is highly subjective ... and is effectively abortion on demand, by another name ... with just a few easy to comply with formalities.

3. The child with an 'extremely serious and incurable disease' could be anything from Cleft Palate to Downs Syndrome ... and again they can be killed up to nine months ... even though they are viable from 6 months.

Also interesting that Belgium, didn't even pretend that it isn't a child that we are dealing with. They don't even bother with euphemisms like 'fetus'.

... and if or when we have abortion on demand in Ireland, the people who were brazenly marching down the streets of Dublin the other day, loudly demanding that they be allowed to kill their unborn children by abortion, as they see fit ... won't bother with any euphemisms either.

Abortion with no gestational age, isn't unique to Belgium. For example:-

In the Czech Republic:-
"If gestation is more than 12 weeks, the abortion requires authorisation by a medical commission."

In Denmark :-
"Abortions can be provided over 12 weeks but it must be approved by a committee."

In France:-
"A termination can be performed up to the very end if there is a serious threat to the life of the mother or a grave abnormality in the foetus."

In Germany:-
"Abortions can also be provided after 12 weeks when there is a danger to a woman’s life, her health or mental health. A termination can also be provided if a foetal abnormality is identified."

In Italy:-
"After the first three months of pregnancy, abortion is only allowed to save the woman's life or when the mother's physical or mental health is endangered, including if a foetal abnormality is identified."

In Iceland:-
"However, this limit does not apply in cases where the mother’s life or health is in jeopardy or if foetal deformity is identified."

Another thing to note is that Ireland already has abortion without gestational limit in the PLDPA. We are the most liberal of all countries in Europe for these types of abortion. The only thing stopping the actual killing of these unborn children after 24 weeks, is the 8th requirement to take account of the life of the child. This will immediately be removed if the 8th is repealed.

Some other European Countries have gestational limits of 22-24 weeks for all abortions ... because after 22-24 weeks the baby is viable ... and it can be delivered by caesarian ... and saved.

In Netherlands:-
"Under the law, an abortion may be performed up to the time when the foetus is viable outside the mother’s body. This is generally taken to mean the 24th week of the pregnancy."

In Greece:-
"If the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest, an abortion can be carried out until the 19th week of pregnancy. In the case of severe foetal abnormalities, the limit for terminating the pregnancy is 24 weeks."

In Finland:-
"Terminations can be provided up to 20 weeks when there is a risk to the physical health of the woman or in cases involving girls under the age of 17. If a foetal abnormality is identified, abortions can take place up to 24 weeks."

In Latvia:-
"Terminations are provided up to 12 weeks without restriction and up to 22 weeks for “medical reasons”.

In Portugal:-
"Abortions are provided up to the 12th week to save a woman's life or to preserve her mental or physical health. In cases of rape, abortions are allowed within 16 weeks. The limit is 24 weeks if there is a risk that the child will be born with an incurable disease or deformity."

david75

Again with the bolding. We can read JC. Please.

And none of the above that I could read without being distracted by constant bolding, is abortion on demand

J C

david75 wrote: »

And none of the above that I could read without being distracted by constant bolding, is abortion on demand

There are two general abortion regimes in countries in Europe.

One (more liberal) regime involves abortion on demand plus abortion for various stated reasons with no gestational limit ... this is the same regime proposed and already legislated for in Ireland as well.

The second (more conservative) regime limits all abortion to a maximum of 22-24 weeks i.e. until viability of the baby.

... so Ireland is heading for the most liberal abortion regime in Europe ... and all that stands in the way is the 8th.

... in any event they're all very radical as they involve the killing of tiny vulnerable Human Beings ... 99% of the time for nothing more than the pregnancy is unwanted ... or the child is potentially disabled.

For example in England and Wales,
Quote:-
In 2016, 97% of abortions (180,794) were undertaken under ground C. A further 2% were
carried out under ground E (3,208 abortions) and a similar proportion (1%: 1342 abortions) under ground D. "

Ground C the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of
the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of
injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

Ground D the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of
the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of
injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of the family of the
pregnant woman.

Ground E there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such
physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

Graces7

Timberrrrrrrr

Graces7 wrote: »

No

Yes

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Graces7 wrote: »

No

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yes

Maybe.