Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

end of the road · 27-04-2018 08:54PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

The pro-life poster isn't the truth.

From a fact check

Here is the factual evidence (i.e THE MEDICAL REPORTS) stating the babies/pregnancies terminated due to DS.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales

You are outright refusing factual evidence now, you are genuinely refusing the evidence right in your face dictating that the pro-life poster is a lie/misrepresentation/manipulation or misleading statistic.

Wriggle your way out of this one.

i have no need to Wriggle my way out of anything, i believe the poster's figure, i believe it is refering to diagnosed ds babies, after all logic would dictate that this figure couldn't be reached without going on something such as diagnosis.

NuMarvel · 27-04-2018 09:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not irrelevant as the law can be changed in the future to include such babies. the current proposals cannot be guaranteed to be the laws indefinitely.

If it's ever proposed that the law is changed, then it may become relevant. But it is irrelevant until then, because it's not going to be in whatever laws are passed post referendum.

end of the road wrote: »

ideally yes, they imported illegal pills, they should be treated the same as any other drug importer. however, the problem with that is it may make these women marters, and that would also be a problem for me.

So if a woman uses imported abortion pills, you want her prosecuted for importing the pills, not using them to kill another human being (as you would put it)? That's not very pro life of you.

robarmstrong · 27-04-2018 09:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

i have no need to Wriggle my way out of anything, i believe the poster's figure, i believe it is refering to diagnosed ds babies, after all logic would dictate that this figure couldn't be reached without going on something such as diagnosis.

Just because you believe something, doesn't make it true.

I have provided you with numerous reports and articles refuting that claim.

I have provided you with numerous reports and articles refuting the 1 in 5 all pregnancies in england/wales/uk end in abortion.

The pro-life campaign purposefully left out the "prenatally diagnosed part", the poster does not refer to "prenatally diagnosed", it says exactly as so - 90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted.

That is a blanket statement to make and you know it is, I have provided facts, reports and articles that show that blanket statement is incorrect, misleading and an intentional misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the true figures. On average, around 50% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted.

They could have said 90% of babies diagnosed with DS in the womb are aborted, but they didn't, and you know why they didn't say it.

Soldah · 27-04-2018 09:01PM

Do will vote repeal Abortion it means for all or many Protestants are for Abortion ??

end of the road · 27-04-2018 09:52PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

If it's ever proposed that the law is changed, then it may become relevant. But it is irrelevant until then, because it's not going to be in whatever laws are passed post referendum.

So if a woman uses imported abortion pills, you want her prosecuted for importing the pills, not using them to kill another human being (as you would put it)? That's not very pro life of you.

ideally it would be both, but as neither will actually happen, then keeping things as they are will do.

Soldah wrote: »

Do will vote repeal Abortion it means for all or many Protestants are for Abortion ??

if the 8th is repaled then abortion up to 12 weeks for any reason will be the legislation with a longer time frame for some cases. i don't know how many protestants would be for or against abortion but i'd imagine some protestants will vote either yes or no

NuMarvel · 27-04-2018 10:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

ideally it would be both, but as neither will actually happen, then keeping things as they are will do.

Precisely. Neither will happen. Because there is no public support for prosecution. There's no political support for it either, with even No side politicians calling for decriminalisation. So there's is little point in retaining a law that isn't doing it's job, and that no one wants to actually use.

There is abortion "on demand" in Ireland, and it's going to keep happening whether people vote Yes or No. The difference is that a Yes vote means those women will be under the appropriate medical supervision, while they're doing it. A No vote on the other hand helps no one and protects no one.

end of the road · 27-04-2018 10:39PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Precisely. Neither will happen. Because there is no public support for prosecution. There's no political support for it either, with even No side politicians calling for decriminalisation. So there's is little point in retaining a law that isn't doing it's job, and that no one wants to actually use.

There is abortion "on demand" in Ireland, and it's going to keep happening whether people vote Yes or No. The difference is that a Yes vote means those women will be under the appropriate medical supervision, while they're doing it. A No vote on the other hand helps no one and protects no one.

i believe the law is doing it's job in some form. i believe it is deterring some abortions, all though how many is unknown. a no vote helps and protects some unborn in my view. no law anywhere in the world is 100% successful.

NuMarvel · 27-04-2018 10:48PM

end of the road wrote: »

i believe the law is doing it's job in some form. i believe it is deterring some abortions, all though how many is unknown. a no vote helps and protects some unborn in my view. no law anywhere in the world is 100% successful.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, this law seems to be 100% unsuccessful. And with no will or support for changing that, even from No campaigners, there's no reason to retain it.

Soldah · 28-04-2018 05:53PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, this law seems to be 100% unsuccessful. And with no will or support for changing that, even from No campaigners, there's no reason to retain it.

I believe in law and for Abortion and Sports too and smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee.

antiskeptic · 28-04-2018 08:45PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

There is abortion "on demand" in Ireland, and it's going to keep happening whether people vote Yes or No. The difference is that a Yes vote means those women will be under the appropriate medical supervision, while they're doing it. A No vote on the other hand helps no one and protects no one.

Were it so simple.

A culture of death (to cut to the chase) can be expected to ease the pathway into an abortion choice. We might as suppose the rates to become English rates.

Mere easement of access increases consumption - as any drive thru owner will tell you.

You can make a stand on principle: "we are not going to aid and abet, this is not what this society stands for." That individuals circumvent that is their perogative. But not with the backing of society.

This isn't to say you hold to the status quo - there is much that can be done judging by the Dutch model.

Unfortunately, our unsophisticated - but trying to pretend we're a modern, sophisticated society - approach picks the baseball bat solutions . No sophistication, no class and most of all, no money required.

Having lived in both the U.K. and Holland those differences span wider society. Broken unequal society Vs successful, sophisticated society. We want to ape the former.

Soldah · 28-04-2018 08:54PM

Home society plus internet chat plus eating dinner as known in my personnal room.

smacl · 29-04-2018 01:59PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

This isn't to say you hold to the status quo - there is much that can be done judging by the Dutch model.

Indeed, the Dutch have had abortion on demand for the first 21 weeks since 1984. I'd agree that in many ways Dutch society is more sophisticated than Ireland and coincidentally more liberal and permissive.

pitifulgod · 29-04-2018 02:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

the fake nurse was a simple failure to check credentials. a stupid mistake, absolutely. deliberate, i don't believe so.
the 1 in 5 isn't a lie. it cannot be proved or disproven. some people want other factors included rather then just abortion and others believe just including abortion is fine.
90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted i believe is another one that hasn't been disproved.
abortion up until birth is technically correct all be it the proposal is that it is for FFA cases. however there is nothing in theory stopping a government from legislating for abortion up to birth in the future, so it should be debated now while we have the chance to, as if repeal is passed that is the last referendum we will have in relation to abortion. so i wouldn't call it a lie.
the 8th not causing deaths is a very debatible 1. 2 of the claimed deaths, 1 was before the 8th was introduced, and another died due to a mismanagement of an underlying condition.
so no actual lies there from what i can find.

McGuirk the head of the campaign smeared the midwife who caught the guy out. He repeatedly said she was lying. So it wasn't simply a fault on the part of the fake nurse. They've intentionally been on the offensive whenever questioned. They have also accused numerous medical experts of lying. Eg the call for Boylan to resign. Sample of some oh the behaviour below.

https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/973717316885274625?s=19

end of the road · 29-04-2018 03:30PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

McGuirk the head of the campaign smeared the midwife who caught the guy out. He repeatedly said she was lying. So it wasn't simply a fault on the part of the fake nurse. They've intentionally been on the offensive whenever questioned. They have also accused numerous medical experts of lying. Eg the call for Boylan to resign. Sample of some oh the behaviour below.

https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/973717316885274625?s=19

mcguirk is 1 individual. he may be the "head" of the campaign but he represents himself ultimately.

pitifulgod · 29-04-2018 03:37PM

end of the road wrote: »

mcguirk is 1 individual. he may be the "head" of the campaign but he represents himself ultimately.

Have you seen the various press releases that have come from the no campaign?

robarmstrong · 29-04-2018 03:55PM

end of the road wrote: »

mcguirk is 1 individual. he may be the "head" of the campaign but he represents himself ultimately.

He's the Comms Director for the campaign.

He represents the campaign, he is a representative of the campaign.

SusieBlue · 29-04-2018 04:36PM

Not to mention that rambling eejit they had representing them on the Late Late show the other night - the girl who CHOSE not to take abortion pills, yet there’s several other videos of her online stating that she never ever considered an abortion, let alone bought pills or organised a trip to the UK.

Their spokesperson was proven to be a total liar. I’m scarlet for them.

29-04-2018 04:42PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not to mention that rambling eejit they had representing them on the Late Late show the other night - the girl who CHOSE not to take abortion pills, yet there’s several other videos of her online stating that she never ever considered an abortion, let alone bought pills or organised a trip to the UK.

Their spokesperson was proven to be a total liar. I’m scarlet for them.

And that's even before looking at groups under the same unbrella such as youth defence who have been linked with some dubious neo nazi organisations.

end of the road · 29-04-2018 05:46PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not to mention that rambling eejit they had representing them on the Late Late show the other night - the girl who CHOSE not to take abortion pills, yet there’s several other videos of her online stating that she never ever considered an abortion, let alone bought pills or organised a trip to the UK.

Their spokesperson was proven to be a total liar. I’m scarlet for them.

not at all, she was brilliant, as far from a rambling anything as it gets. i did see those videos, it doesn't seem to be the same girl, all though both do look very alike. so no, no liar here.

DubInMeath wrote: »

And that's even before looking at groups under the same unbrella such as youth defence who have been linked with some dubious neo nazi organisations.

they are all very very tiny elements of the no campaign, and they only represent themselves. both sides will likely have some dubious individuals, it's the name of the game unfortunately. they only represent themselves.
the vast vast majority of the pro-life campaign are civil, factual and respectful. i believe the vast majority of the pro-choice campaign are respectful also, i certainly don't judge them on the basis of the aggressive minority among them.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2018 05:56PM

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, the Dutch have had abortion on demand for the first 21 weeks since 1984. I'd agree that in many ways Dutch society is more sophisticated than Ireland and coincidentally more liberal and permissive.

Yeah. And abortion as a last rather than first resort - with abortion rates to back it up. We can learn something other than Go straight to abortion, do not pass go.

Dutch society is more liberal and permissive - but it lays upon a society which is far more sophisticated and intelligent than ours. You don't see swathes of people stumbling around drunk at the drop of a hat - indeed, it takes a bartender some time rumbling around in the back of a press to find a pint glass (they sell beer in timble-like measures), they have laws which they actually enforce, they have a welfare system which wouldn't be anything like the likes of ours, where folk can sit and suck the life out of it.

We won't of course - not in this comparatively muck savage society of ours where liberalism is case of trying to appear mod and sophisticated but which anything but.

29-04-2018 05:56PM

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, she was brilliant, as far from a rambling anything as it gets. i did see those videos, it doesn't seem to be the same girl, all though both do look very alike. so no, no liar here.

they are all very very tiny elements of the no campaign, and they only represent themselves. both sides will likely have some dubious individuals, it's the name of the game unfortunately. they only represent themselves.
the vast vast majority of the pro-life campaign are civil, factual and respectful. i believe the vast majority of the pro-choice campaign are respectful also, i certainly don't judge them on the basis of the aggressive minority among them.

I certainly wouldn't call John McGuirk any of these things such as respectful, factual or civil why select him as a spokesperson if he doesn't represent the views of the group

SusieBlue · 29-04-2018 06:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, she was brilliant, as far from a rambling anything as it gets. i did see those videos, it doesn't seem to be the same girl, all though both do look very alike. so no, no liar here.

Would you cop yourself on.
Are you trying to say now that it’s a case of mistaken identity????
Her name is Mary Kenny.
It’s the same girl. She’s a liar. And now you’re telling lies too, to deflect from the fact that it was pointed out that she’s a fibber.

robarmstrong · 29-04-2018 06:08PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yeah. And abortion as a last rather than first resort - with abortion rates to back it up. We can learn something other than Go straight to abortion, do not pass go.

We won't of course - not in this comparatively muck savage society of ours.

You know, you don't have to hang about in a muck savage society like this, nobody is forcing you to.

What something can we learn other than straight to abortion?

Have you maybe considered that maybe all these travel abroad for abortion because the only choice they have home is forced birth? If the restrictions on the current abortion law were made more lax, these women might be inclined to keep the baby and give it up for adoption?

As of now it's either you're stuck to being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or you're forced abroad.

robarmstrong · 29-04-2018 06:16PM

end of the road wrote: »

not at all, she was brilliant, as far from a rambling anything as it gets. i did see those videos, it doesn't seem to be the same girl, all though both do look very alike. so no, no liar here.

Taken from loveboth website regarding Mary Kenny.

"Soon after I found out I was pregnant, I looked up the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, what is more commonly known as BPAS, and decided that I would travel to England to end the life of my small baby. Soon after this, I realised my passport had expired and I became frantic. I ordered abortion pills online, but they never arrived"

So she didn't "choose" not to take abortion pills, they never arrived.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2018 06:19PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

You know, you don't have to hang about in a muck savage society like this, nobody is forcing you to.

I'm Irish as it happens, and there's something about being Irish that finds home best, despite the realities of the place. Make no mistake though, we are backward and unsophisticated in comparison.

What something can we learn other than straight to abortion?

Sex education, free contraceptives, alter our drink based culture (we did it with cigarettes) support for single mothers, support for people to struggle with the notion that their life plan has collapsed.

We have nothing here.

Have you maybe considered that maybe all these travel abroad for abortion because the only choice they have home is forced birth?

They travel abroad because there is no other option. They travel abroad because there was little to stop them getting themselves into that position in the first place.

Abortion as first resort is the least sophisticated of all routes.

If the restrictions on the current abortion law were made more lax, these women might be inclined to keep the baby and give it up for adoption?

Abortion is the last option in the Netherlands. Presumably giving the baby up for adoption forms one of the alternatives that people actually chose for.

As of now it's either you're stuck to being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or you're forced abroad.

Presumably, the Dutch who don't plump for abortion first thing don't feel themselves to carry the baby to term. Presumably the Dutch don't get themselves into this position in the first place.

robarmstrong · 29-04-2018 06:26PM

Funny, all your "suggestions" seem to share a common theme in forcing a woman to remain pregnant when she clearly doesn't want to.

Why don't you just come out and be honest about your opinion of women who seek abortions?

Yes, they travel abroad because there is no other option for them here other than forced birth.

"This position" just come out and say it, tell us all how the irresponsible women just get themselves into a position of pregnancy, please do.

NuMarvel · 29-04-2018 06:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion is the last option in the Netherlands. Presumably giving the baby up for adoption forms one of the alternatives that people actually chose for.

Not in any great numbers. This EU Parliament report has a note that say the number of domestic adoptions in the Netherland is an average of 28 per year. Out of a country of 17 million people.

Ours is an average of 7 per year, out of a country of 4.7 million, so we're already roughly in line with them.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2018 06:38PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Funny, all your "suggestions" seem to share a common theme in forcing a woman to remain pregnant when she clearly doesn't want to.

My suggestion saw the number of women being forced into travelling significantly reduced. Let's suppose reduced to the level of abortion (minus the number of abortions which would be legal, or could be reasonably made legal here) in Holland.

Why don't you just come out and be honest about your opinion of women who seek abortions?

Unlike you, who seems to tar all women with the same "trust women" brush, I suppose a range. A range from outright tragic to outright irresponsible. I'm not much in the mood to broad brushstroke the eighth away so as to enable more of the latter.

Just come out and say it, tell us all how the irresponsible women just get themselves into a position of pregnancy, please do.

Absolutely irresponsiblity comes into it for a proportion. You don't suppose so?

robarmstrong · 29-04-2018 06:43PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

My suggestion saw the number of women being forced into travelling significantly reduced. Let's suppose reduced to the level of abortion (minus the number of abortions which would be legal, or could be reasonably made legal here) in Holland.

Unlike you, who seems to tar all women with the same "trust women" brush, I suppose a range. A range from outright tragic to outright irresponsible. I'm not much in the mood to broad brushstroke the eighth away so as to enable more of the latter.

Absolutely irresponsiblity comes into it for a proportion. You don't suppose so?

Your "suggestion" still forces women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be, only when you can address that some women just mentally cannot cope with being pregnant at a certain point of their lives or in certain circumstances they are in, you'll see reason.

Ah here we go, uncovering the misogyny. I trust women because I have not been shown an indicator that they are baby hating abortion chasing machines. I trust that women know what to do with their own pregnancy as it's their body.

I suggest innocent irresponsibility rather than outright maliciousness which you seem to be portraying.

antiskeptic · 29-04-2018 07:08PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Your "suggestion" still forces women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be, only when you can address that some women just mentally cannot cope with being pregnant at a certain point of their lives or in certain circumstances they are in, you'll see reason.

.

My suggestion see's a lot less women "forced" than is currently the case. Dramatically so if Dutch levels were achieved.

I would also have no problem visiting the case of abortion in any number of circumstances - if it truly is the case that doctors feel their hands tied or a womans life is at risk.

After that you have a cohort who still want an abortion. I balance their trouble against the amount of life saved.

If you don't prize life in the womb then even this cohort will be too much for you. But I do, so in short: tough is not all can be reconciled to everyone's satisfaction. I'll settle for the best worst option

You don't seem to have much interest in achieving Dutch levels. At least you haven't said so. It would appear you have want choice uber alles.

Ah here we go, uncovering the misogyny. I trust women because I have not been shown an indicator that they are baby hating abortion chasing machines. I trust that women know what to do with their own pregnancy as it's their body.

I suggest innocent irresponsibility rather than outright maliciousness which you seem to be portraying.

Carelessness when handing firearms leads you to blowing your head off. Carelessness with contraception (or no contraception at all) leads to pregnancies.

We have already seen that we'd need a female population of something like 100 million in England to cater for the 100,000 abortions which are put down to failure of contraception: where failure meant failure even though used properly.

Carelessness and irresponsibility, among a not-insignificant cohort. There is nothing in what I said that suggests maliciousness on anyone's part. Just simple irresponsibility and carelessness when it comes to handling biological firearms.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments