Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 09:48AM

Gonna play devils advocate here -

The MAP is not an abortion pill, it's to prevent fertilization of an egg, ovulation, implantation of egg etc.

However if you are under the belief that all life begins at conception then that would technically class the MAP as a form of abortion, although it would not be medically or legally correct it would only be considered a form of abortion if you are under the belief that all life begins at conception.

end of the road · 05-04-2018 02:48PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes because we are voting for choice not mandatory abortions

well no, you are not voting for "choice" in general, because everyone already has that. you are voting to repeal the 8th and allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, the right for a woman to kill her unborn for non-medical reasons.
some pro-choice need to own what they are voting for instead of throwing out meaningless slogans.

laoch na mona wrote: »

religion has no place in law

agreed, however in general this is nothing to do with religion, but whether a woman should have the legal right to end her unborn's life without reason up to a timeframe, and for exceptional circumstances beyond that timeframe. many of us voting no to repeal will not be religious at all.

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 02:55PM

end of the road wrote: »

well no, you are not voting for "choice" in general, because everyone already has that. you are voting to repeal the 8th and allow abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, the right for a woman to kill her unborn for non-medical reasons.
some pro-choice need to own what they are voting for instead of throwing out meaningless slogans.

We are voting for "choice" which involves repealing the 8th and allowing women to pursue a legal abortion upon request during a pregnancy they do not want for up to 12 weeks.

The bolded part made me laugh, meaningless slogans? We're being called murderers, baby killers, abortion-happy hellbound individuals and you want to throw in something about a pro-choice slogan?

laoch na mona · 05-04-2018 03:02PM

we are voting to bring Irish law on par with the rest of Europe and to stop forcing women to go to England for abortions

end of the road · 05-04-2018 03:39PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

we are voting to bring Irish law on par with the rest of Europe and to stop forcing women to go to England for abortions

well no, nobody is "forcing" women to go to england for abortions. women choose to go to england for an abortion because it's only availible in limited circumstances here. if women were being forced to go to england for an abortion, i'd imagine that would be a criminal offence as part of the duress laws?

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 03:40PM

end of the road wrote: »

well no, nobody is "forcing" women to go to england for abortions. women choose to go to england for an abortion because it's only availible in limited circumstances here. if women were being forced to go to england for an abortion, i'd imagine that would be a criminal offence as part of the duress laws?

If a woman cannot seek an abortion here on grounds (let's say mental health), she's forced to go elsewhere to seek said abortion.

They don't choose to go to England, they have to go to England, how difficult is that to understand?

end of the road · 05-04-2018 03:51PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

The bolded part made me laugh, meaningless slogans? We're being called murderers, baby killers, abortion-happy hellbound individuals and you want to throw in something about a pro-choice slogan?

well yes, abortion is technically killing. people may be uncomfortable with that fact, but in my view if they want to vote for repeal of the 8th with the eventual outcome of it being introduced, then they need to be comfortable with it and own it. one must own what they vote for.
if you think the names some pro-lifers call you is bad, you should see what pro-lifers are being called by some elements of the pro-choice, when many of us are as far from those things as it gets.
and yes, in my view slogans like "trust women" and "choice" are meaningless slogans, because i should think most people trust women, and all of us have some choices restricted to prevent harm to others, as that is how a society works.

robarmstrong wrote: »

If a woman cannot seek an abortion here on grounds (let's say mental health), she's forced to go elsewhere to seek said abortion.

They don't choose to go to England, they have to go to England, how difficult is that to understand?

i would have to disagree. she is choosing to have the abortion. for her situation she may need to go to england, but she is still not being forced in my view, on the grounds that she does not have to have the abortion.

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 03:58PM

end of the road wrote: »

well yes, abortion is technically killing. people may be uncomfortable with that fact, but in my view if they want to vote for repeal of the 8th with the eventual outcome of it being introduced, then they need to be comfortable with it and own it. one must own what they vote for.
if you think the names some pro-lifers call you is bad, you should see what pro-lifers are being called by some elements of the pro-choice, when many of us are as far from those things as it gets.
and yes, in my view slogans like "trust women" and "choice" are meaningless slogans, because i should think most people trust women, and all of us have some choices restricted to prevent harm to others, as that is how a society works.

Most pro-lifers do not trust women (from what I've seen, this is called anecdotal), sure have a glance over the 8th amendment thread and listen to the absolute heap of .... that some pro-lifers are spouting out about women.

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree. she is choosing to have the abortion. for her situation she may need to go to england, but she is still not being forced in my view, on the grounds that she does not have to have the abortion.

Your view is not fact, she is being forced to seek a medical procedure in another country because the medical procedure is not made available to her in her own country. She does not have to have the abortion, but she also should not have to carry a pregnancy to full-term to satisfy people's beliefs. You saying she's not being forced in your view does not mean she is not being forced, you are wrong.

....... · 05-04-2018 04:01PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 05-04-2018 04:22PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Most pro-lifers do not trust women

we do. we just do not want to allow them the right to end the life of their unborn outside medical necessity. that's nothing to do with trust, it's to do with our stance that what exists in relation to protecting the right of the born to life, should continue to extend to the unborn as well, as much as is practical to do so.

robarmstrong wrote: »

she also should not have to carry a pregnancy to full-term to satisfy people's beliefs.

on the basis of that logic, we should all not be forced by law to do anything, as ultimately our laws were based around and implemented on the basis of beliefs. thankfully that will not happen, and i hope the same will happen in relation to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
a woman being prevented by law from killing her unborn, is prevented from doing so for the same reasons that she would be prevented from killing him or her once born.

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 04:27PM

end of the road wrote: »

we do. we just do not want to allow them the right to end the life of their unborn outside medical necessity. that's nothing to do with trust, it's to do with our stance that what exists in relation to protecting the right of the born to life, should continue to extend to the unborn as well, as much as is practical to do so.

"We trust them, we just don't want to allow them the right to choose what happens with their pregnancy is all"

Well that's just glorious isn't it, how chivalrous, I'm sure pregnant women everywhere will feel warm and fuzzy inside at that comment, what a ridiculous thing to imply about women.

end of the road wrote: »

on the basis of that logic, we should all not be forced by law to do anything, as ultimately our laws were based around and implemented on the basis of beliefs. thankfully that will not happen, and i hope the same will happen in relation to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
a woman being prevented by law from killing her unborn, is prevented from doing so for the same reasons that she would be prevented from killing him or her once born.

My logic is sound actually, the law's logic is not, hence why it is being challenged for repeal. You can throw "killing" and "unborn" into whatever it is you have to say, it doesn't make what you say right though.

What are you gonna do when repeal wins? Where are you gonna go? Take the soapbox elsewhere or what's the story?

end of the road · 05-04-2018 04:46PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

"We trust them, we just don't want to allow them the right to choose what happens with their pregnancy is all"

Well that's just glorious isn't it, how chivalrous, I'm sure pregnant women everywhere will feel warm and fuzzy inside at that comment, what a ridiculous thing to imply about women.

not at all. there is nothing wrong with believeing that someone should not be able to take a life unless extremely necessary, whether that life is born or unborn. and the good news is there are women who agree with that view. so yes, we do trust women.

robarmstrong wrote: »

My logic is sound actually, the law's logic is not, hence why it is being challenged for repeal.

the law's logic is sound, very sound. the issue is it's implementation, which causes some problems, and those would be remedied with large scale support if it was not for the abortion on demand up to 12 weeks proposal. rather unfortunate such an opportunity will either be lost, or implemented with less support then it could have had, but we are where we are, and the government must live with that.
any of the laws that are implemented to prevent people causing harm to others, are logical and sound.

....... · 05-04-2018 04:49PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 05-04-2018 05:18PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i have always been clear that if it was not for the proposal to allow abortion on demand i would be voting repeal.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

some reasonable people agree with it, and some reasonable people don't.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

most of us who will be voting no to repeal due to our disagreement with the proposals are not misogynistic. far from it in fact as we believe one of a woman's most fundamental rights is the right to be born in the first place. most of us on the pro-life side are good people who simply disagree with abortion on demand. i have no doubt there are some misogynists on the pro-life side as there are on the pro-choice side but they only represent themselves and are in a tiny minority.

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 06:03PM

You were never going to vote to repeal, regardless of what you say. Do you even repeat what you say out loud?

You're seriously voting no just because it doesn't suit you to vote yes, plain and simple. You can dress it up as much as you want, but you're voting to deny a woman a right to have a medical procedure performed on you just because the grounds of it doesn't suit you.

You can carry on all you want with this but it's out and out nimbyism as well with some of the soapboxing crap you've spouted, you're grand with abortion to some content it just has to suit you.

So let me put it very, very simply so it can sink in.

You are not being forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
You are not being forced to leave your own country to seek something that should be readily available to you ON REQUEST but isn't due to oppressive laws and their interpretations.
You are not being shamed and vilified by others for seeking this abortion (the very same others who don't give a toss about the baby once it's born).
You are voting no because it doesn't suit you, without giving a toss about the following above.

Abortion doesn't suit me either pal, but I sure as sh.. am not having my daughter fly across the pond to seek one should she ever need one, regardless of whether or not the proposals suit me.

05-04-2018 08:38PM

laoch na mona wrote: »

we are voting to bring Irish law on par with the rest of Europe and to stop forcing women to go to England for abortions

I don't actually agree with that at all- as in, that's not the reason why I will vote on the day.
Leaving aside what way I'll vote, I won't be influenced by any other legislation elsewhere in the world. I'll make an informed decision and will vote what I feel is best for this country and also with reference to my own conscience.

NuMarvel · 05-04-2018 09:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't actually agree with that at all- as in, that's not the reason why I will vote on the day.
Leaving aside what way I'll vote, I won't be influenced by any other legislation elsewhere in the world. I'll make an informed decision and will vote what I feel is best for this country and also with reference to my own conscience.

I don't think anyone is saying we should vote a particular way just because the proposed legislation is similar to other EU countries. But looking at similar legislation elsewhere will help you make an informed vote. It will give you a sense of how it is likely to operate here, meaning you can evaluate claims made in that regard. You can have a look at the history of their abortion laws to see how often they changed their laws (spoilers: not often), and why, which is especially relevant as the vote is going to be whether our abortion laws are set out in statute or in the constitution.

And to that end, the Irish Times website has a good overview of the laws in most European countries from about halfway down this page. It doesn't have a huge amount of detail, but I think there's enough there to give some a sense of how we'd compare.

05-04-2018 09:29PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think anyone is saying we should vote a particular way just because the proposed legislation is similar to other EU countries.

laoch na mona did:)

NuMarvel · 05-04-2018 09:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

laoch na mona did:)

I read that as being a consequence of the Yes vote, not a reason. But even if it is a reason, it wasn't the only one he gave as he said it would also mean women would no longer have to go to England to access abortion.

05-04-2018 09:38PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I read that as being a consequence of the Yes vote, not a reason. But even if it is a reason, it wasn't the only one he gave as he said it would also mean women would no longer have to go to England to access abortion.

I don't care what else laoch na mona said. That post was enough for me.:)

NuMarvel · 05-04-2018 09:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't care what else laoch na mona said.

If you ever decide to take of the blinkers, let me know and we can continue this conversation.

05-04-2018 09:52PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you ever decide to take of the blinkers, let me know and we can continue this conversation.

Why is laoch na mona's opinion so important to you?

I gave you my opinion.

But from your post, you're implying that I need to get with laoch na mona's opinion before I can engage with you.

That, I won't be doing.

Bob_Marley · 05-04-2018 10:32PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The pharmaceutical companies that commercialize them are, of course, very keen to play down any anti-implantation effect, but it doesn't matter : let's take another form of emergency contraception, the IUD (coil) where it is accepted that a part of its action is definitely by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg :
"The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies that they must also prevent some pregnancies by post-fertilization effects such as prevention of implantation" (Wikipedia) - does the fact that it is legally and medically defined as EC make this quoted statement untrue?

And on the actual question here, should the IUD not be redefined to take its abortifacient aspects into account, and banned as killing babies fertilized eggs?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Guess what the actual facts still are ?

The Morning after pill is both medically and legally an emergency contraceptive and not an abortion pill.

Turtwig · 05-04-2018 10:40PM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Guess what the actual facts still are ?

The Morning after pill is both medically and legally an emergency contraceptive and not an abortion pill.

Mod:

This is borderline soap boxing. Posters, have engaged with you a broader depth of field on this matter. Simply stating"it just is" is not contributing to the discussion in a positive manner. If you don't wish to go further with it, you are free to ignore the matter but please refrain from repeating ad nauseum the same same statement over and over when others have sought to probe the matter deeper.

Bob_Marley · 05-04-2018 10:52PM

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:

This is borderline soap boxing. Posters, have engaged with you a broader depth of field on this matter. Simply stating"it just is" is not contributing to the discussion in a positive manner. If you don't wish to go further with it, you are free to ignore the matter but please refrain from repeating ad nauseum the same same statement over and over when others have sought to probe the matter deeper.

I'm not the one soapboxing here. You have the cart before the horse.
People can keep attempting to misrepresent my posts all they like.

I have a right of reply, so whenever they do soapbox their false claims about the morning after pill and what I've posted, I'll simply remind them of the simple unchangeable fact.

You can attempt to threaten me, deny, hide, misrepresent, misquote straw man and attempt to prevent this fact being posted all you like.

You can card me, or ban me.

It won't change this fact :

The Morning after pill is both medically and legally an emergency contraceptive and not an abortion pill.

Oh and in case this is my last post . . . and / or you delete it.

It won't change these scientific and biological facts either :

The human life cycle begins at fertilisation.

There are two human lives involved. Not one.

robarmstrong · 05-04-2018 10:57PM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

I'm not the one soapboxing here. You have the cart before the horse.
People can keep attempting to misrepresent my posts all they like.

I have a right of reply, so whenever they do soapbox their false claims about the morning after pill and what I've posted, I'll simply remind them of the simple unchangeable fact.

You can attempt to deny, hide, misrepresent, misquote straw man and attempt to prevent this fact being posted all you like.

You can card me, or ban me.

It won't change this fact :

The Morning after pill is both medically and legally an emergency contraceptive and not an abortion pill.

Agree with you fully on this, I may not speak for those other pro-choicers but I think what they're trying to ascertain is that some pro-lifers insist life begins at conception, would taking the MAP equate in their eyes to an abortion, which is a good question that hasn't been answered.

I don't think they're trying to soap box indirectly but rather try get an answer from some individuals who believe life begins the moment from conception.

Turtwig · 05-04-2018 11:03PM

Bob_Marley wrote: »

I'm not the one soapboxing here. You have the cart before the horse.
People can keep attempting to misrepresent my posts all they like.

I have a right of reply, so whenever they do soapbox their false claims about the morning after pill and what I've posted, I'll simply remind them of the simple unchangeable fact.

You can attempt to threaten me, deny, hide, misrepresent, misquote straw man and attempt to prevent this fact being posted all you like.

You can card me, or ban me.

It won't change this fact :

The Morning after pill is both medically and legally an emergency contraceptive and not an abortion pill.

Oh and in case this is my last post . . .

It won't change these scientific and biological facts either :

The human life cycle begins at fertilisation.

There are two human lives involved. Not one.

Mod:

If you wish to.discuss further take it pm.

I'm not disputing your opinion. I'm stating that the way you are currently expressing it is not constructive. If you don't wish to go into the esoteric nature, of life, fertilisation, conception, persons, that is your prerogative. However, when other posters are diving deeper testing a foundation you are expected you follow in kind with relevance to their replies.

Please take any further responses to private message or helpdesk

volchitsa · 06-04-2018 08:52AM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Agree with you fully on this, I may not speak for those other pro-choicers but I think what they're trying to ascertain is that some pro-lifers insist life begins at conception, would taking the MAP equate in their eyes to an abortion, which is a good question that hasn't been answered.

I don't think they're trying to soap box indirectly but rather try get an answer from some individuals who believe life begins the moment from conception.

I have also pointed out, with a link and quote, that the IUD is acknowledged to have an abortifacient component to its mechanism, and the IUD is not even "emergency contraception", it is legally considered to be a regular contraceptive method, like the pill or the condom.

The poster has of course ignored this point, despite quoting the relevant post.

....... · 06-04-2018 10:39AM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 06-04-2018 11:13AM

Just FYI, it looks like Bob has closed their account so it's unlikely they'll be replying to the questions posed to them on this thread.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments