Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Pregnancy is a consequence - there are no should's about it. Bear (literally) the consequences and let someone else love and cherish the child if you can't.
I don't think there would be problems finding people who'd love to adopt. I mean, with abortion rampant in the countries around us, there's hardly a glut of babies to adopt, is there?

You are clearly not someone who has done any research into adoption statistics in this country. I suggest you educate yourself before making any more unfounded claims.
I'll give you some help, as you clearly don't have a clue.

According to the most recent statistics (2016), just 5 infants were adopted in Ireland that year. This is versus the 6.2k children currently in the care of social services.

Now, why might that be? There are a few answers to that.
Firstly, due to advances in fertility treatments (specifically clomid & IVF), couples who struggle to conceive now have a plethora of options before they arrive at adoption.
The average sized family is getting smaller every year, and many couples are choosing not to have children at all.
On top of that, for the few who do wish to adopt, the process takes years (because the system favours keeping the children in state care) and is extremely emotionally and financially draining.
So those that do want to adopt, do so internationally from countries such as Vietnam and Russia.

Now - as for the woman giving the baby up for adoption.
In order to give up her parental rights, she must declare herself an unfit parent. In doing that, she must also surrender any older children she might have, or any children she might have in the future.
And well all know the adoption statistics for older children - they end up stuck in the system, left behind. Adoptive parents want babies and toddlers, its sad but true.

If you want to stop 4k adoptions every year, you need to find 4k adults willing to take on these children.That simply won't happen. There has been no appetite for adoption in Ireland since the exporting mother & baby homes closed.
So really what you'd be doing is adding another 4k children to the foster care system.
Which is HARDLY in their best interests. And simply not a feasible solution at all.

My view is that you bear the consequences of your actions (up to a point) and that you don't get to escape the consequences of your actions at anothers expense.

My "choice" that its indeed another in the womb doesn't require your permission - even if it's in your womb.

Lucky for me, you get to have absolutely no choice in my bodily autonomy. Its none of your business.
I would never personally have an abortion myself (but fully support others rights to do so), but if I was in a situation tomorrow where I was in the midst of a crisis & needed one, I could fly to the UK and you could do nothing about it. I have a constitutional right to do so.
The question here is whether we allow women to receive their treatment in their home country, or continue forcing them to travel to another country for medical care.

Lucky for you, when the Yes vote passes, you can continue to live your life with that "choice" for your own womb. You will just no longer get to have a say in everyone else's reproductive organs.
And what a wonderful day for this country that will be.
I respect your view, and your right to voice it. I just don't think you should be allowed to inflict that view on the whole of society, who no doubt, do not share that view. Your moral viewpoint is no more superior than mine.

The woman should always come first in this scenario - it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

The process is very slow but adoption is available in Ireland - from infant up to 18.
Unmarried mothers can put the child up for adoption; an orphaned child can be adopted; a child whose parents are unfit can be adopted and foster care adoption is available.
Unless the adoption agency of ireland; citizens info etc are lying. Which they're not...seeing as they have a section specifically for those who are pregnant and thinking of adopting.

7,6,10,3 - domestic adoption rates from 2015-2012.
13, 23, 17, 10 foster to adoption rates same period.
The process is very slow but it does exist.

robarmstrong wrote: »

It is absolutely available, yes.

Is it feasible and should it be used as an arguing point on women seeking abortions? Absolutely not. No woman should be forced to contend with a pregnancy she does not want.

Why weren't you as quick to correct the poster above me who said it isn't available?
Yes, it should be addressed and argued. I would like to give women more choice than 'abortion or raise the child all by yourself'. At least make a third option viable.

False again. The intra-family/extended family adoption rates are given seperately. Seeing as you were accusing another user of being so uneducated, i assumed you actually knew the figures but it's clear now that you don't. The intra-family adoptions are 1,4,1,1 for '15-'12.

Adoption demand would be high in Ireland, but the process is slow. Big difference in having a slow process that can't cater to demand and no process at all.

Defunkd wrote: »

Why weren't you as quick to correct the poster above me who said it isn't available?
Yes, it should be addressed and argued. I would like to give women more choice than 'abortion or raise the child all by yourself'. At least make a third option viable.

I don't think any Yes voter has an issue with adoption being available as an option for people in crisis pregnancies, if that's what they want and is appropriate in their circumstances. But is shouldn't be at the exclusion of abortion also being an option, which is what No voters want.

Defunkd wrote: »

Why weren't you as quick to correct the poster above me who said it isn't available?
Yes, it should be addressed and argued. I would like to give women more choice than 'abortion or raise the child all by yourself'. At least make a third option viable.

We've had 35 years since the 8th was put in place to improve adoption laws. It hasn't happened. It isn't likely to happen. And a future reform is of no use as an option to a woman having a crisis pregnancy today. Talking about making changes now is of no help.

Defunkd wrote: »

False again. The intra-family/extended family adoption rates are given seperately. Seeing as you were accusing another user of being so uneducated, i assumed you actually knew the figures but it's clear now that you don't. The intra-family adoptions are 1,4,1,1 for '15-'12.

Adoption demand would be high in Ireland, but the process is slow. Big difference in having a slow process that can't cater to demand and no process at all.

I completely disagree. Fewer people than ever are opting to have their own children, let alone seeking to adopt others.
The most recent stats I can find suggest the average Irish family has 1.4 children.

frag420 wrote: »

So would you agree, as a fetus cannot understand free will nor the consequences of their actions that they lack specific characteristics that make them human!?

So if they are not fully human what are they?

it's still human and a human being. it hasn't developed personhood yet but human being it is

SusieBlue wrote: »

So you are basically confirming there that you believe a child should be an unpleasant but necessary consequence to careless people. What a horrible situation you are encouraging.

What options are there? Please list them. I've asked EOTR about 5 times now and he's come up with nada.

Its not a child, we are considering here. Its a pre >12 week fetus with no consciousness or sentience. However, the living breathing citizen in which this fetus resides, where's our consideration for her?

This fetus is NOT of equal worth to her, unless she decides it to be. She should not lose out on her rights, needs, wants and bodily autonomy at the expense of the baby. She is a living born citizen, and we need to look after those people before we look after the unborn.

Referring to women who go through the trauma and distress of a crisis pregnancy as "prima donnas" is disgusting, it shows little understanding of the struggles of these women and shows zero empathy.

And regardless, until the fetus is viable outside the womb, it SHOULD be all about her. Her healthcare should not be substandard and she should not lose her rights just because she is pregnant.

the fetus not having consciousness or sentience is irrelevant. it means nothing, it's just how it is for the early stages of development. the love both campaign considers both mother and baby. if we go with your logic, the newborn is not of equal worth to the mother unless she decides it to be. see how that doesn't ultimately work? the same is the case for the unborn. as it should be, and will hopefully remain to be. everyone of us will lose out on some of our wants as part of living in a society. the mother's rights are guaranteed as she will be saved if there is a life threatening situation.

we can look after both the born and the unborn. it can be about both. i don't think people who support the ability to kill the unborn for absolutely any reason really get to complain about people supposibly not having empathy.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

well no they actually aren't required.

....... wrote: »

LOL - you are funny.

If you cant conduct yourself with a bit of civility and drop the personal attacks them unfortunately you taint your points as people dont notice them and only notice the personal attacks.

Ive highlighted your smart arse comments in case you are unaware which ones are painting you in a bad light.

Pro-choice - I dont call myself anything tbh. You can take that as you will.

Aborting her child. You know a fetus isnt a child right?

When you come down off the smart arse and personal attack high horse youre on there maybe ask yourself this simple question - in the 35 years since the 8th has been in place have we seen any improvements in the adoption process in Ireland or any reason to think that women would give children up for adoption rather than get an abortion? Currently they have to make an onerous journey OR take pills illegally and yet they dont seem to be lining up to give kids up for adoption? Why would they do so if abortion was MORE accessible?

Oh right, me painting myself in a bad light is far worse than you talking crap and avoiding owning it when shown to be wrong despite you 'civilly' berating another user for being, as it turns out, as ignorant as yourself. (i'll hazard a guess that you're female - men rarely try to manipulate other men using this method...and then adds personal insults a few lines later...for good measure😂)

What species does the fetus belong to? Since it's not a child etc; could it be some other species?

SusieBlue wrote: »

Lucky for you, when the Yes vote passes, you can continue to live your life with that "choice" for your own womb. You will just no longer get to have a say in everyone else's reproductive organs.

we already don't have a say in someone's reproductive organs. the law simply prevents the killing of other human beings in the country.

SusieBlue wrote: »

And what a wonderful day for this country that will be.

yes, we will legally be able to kill the unborn in this country for any reason up to 12 weeks. not only that but there is the possibility of money being diverted from vital services to fund the killing.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I respect your view, and your right to voice it. I just don't think you should be allowed to inflict that view on the whole of society, who no doubt, do not share that view. Your moral viewpoint is no more superior than mine.

so we should abolish the laws in relation to drink driving, murder, child abuse, rape, among other examples? after all, we should not be able to inflict our views against such crimes on the rest of society, our moral viewpoint is no more superior then those who disagree with those acts being against the law. again, you see how your logic doesn't quite work?

SusieBlue wrote: »

The woman should always come first in this scenario - it shouldn't even be up for discussion.

she does come first. her life is saved over the unborn.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you are already able to decide what happens to your body. you aren't able to decide what happens to the unborn's body in ireland however.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nope, try again. Fetus's are not human beings. They're human, yes. But they are not born citizens and should not be afforded any rights at the expense of the women carrying it.



You know this is a lie. Cop on. Paying for and taking two pills and two doctors appointments will cost the state significantly less than the cost of maternity care, a birth and hospital stay, children's allowance for 18 years and the cost of educating a child for their school years.
You know this, stop pretending to be stupid.



No, no, and no. Those crimes affect living born citizens. They are there to protect our society`. That's the difference.



Yes, she needs to be dying in order for her life to be saved. Her health is not considered, or her wellbeing, or her wishes. Lucky her. To be on deaths door and offered a chance. Let us all rejoice.


Now can you please answer my question about the options? You are well able to jump on my replies to other people but you lurk in the background whenever I ask you for proof of anything. You never address anything when asked - all the signs of having a weak argument with no evidence.

fetuses are human beings, but not persons. they are not awarded any rights at the expence of the women carying them, they only have the right to life, and that is only as far as it is practical to uphold that right to life. the costs of children are better value for money for the tax payer as they have a good chance of being contributing members of society. the law that prevents the killing of the unborn except in extreme circumstances is also there to protect our society. i gave you possible options that were availible, they did not suit you, but that doesn't mean they aren't options.