Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

uck51js9zml2yt · 02-05-2018 05:17PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

But the irony of that is that's exactly how the 8th was put in the constitution in the first place.
A group lobbied and campaigned and eventually the group grew so big that when the referendum came around they won the vote and the 8th was added to the constitution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: we are not going to go from being one of the most strict and conservatively regulated countries to a free for all, over night.
There is currently no public appetite. After this referendum, regardless of which way it goes, politicians aren't going to touch on this issue again for a long, long time.

If a society in the future, in say 30/40 years, wants legislation changed to reflect a more liberal regime, who are we to try to sabotage that?

Never said it would happen overnight but look at every abortion regime. It's been a slow gradual progression to later abortions.

I'm glad people here trust the government. I don't !

smacl · 02-05-2018 05:38PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Never said it would happen overnight but look at every abortion regime. It's been a slow gradual progression to later abortions.

I'm glad people here trust the government. I don't !

Between the government and the religious right, I'll go with the government. Lesser of two evils by a country mile

NuMarvel · 02-05-2018 07:01PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Never said it would happen overnight but look at every abortion regime. It's been a slow gradual progression to later abortions.

Not really. Any other European country that set the on request timeframe at 12 weeks has left it at that. And some of them go back decades, eg Greece since 1984, Luxembourg since 1978, Denmark since 1973. I can't see any reason to believe Ireland would be any different.

And even where the law allows later abortions, in practice women are having them earlier due to advances in medical technology. In Britain for example, 57% of abortions were carried out before the 10th week in 2002 (the earliest figures I can find). In 2006, that had risen to 68%. In 2016, the most recent figures, it was 81%.

International experience tells us that countries typically don't change their on request timeframe. But even if they did, international experience also says that when women can have abortions early, women will have abortions early, even if the law allows for later abortions.

uck51js9zml2yt · 02-05-2018 07:14PM

The link to the article I mentioned earlier..

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/psychiatrist-says-to-suggest-abortion-a-solution-to-mental-illness-naive-in-the-extreme-1.3480660?mode=amp

uck51js9zml2yt · 02-05-2018 07:15PM

smacl wrote: »

Between the government and the religious right, I'll go with the government. Lesser of two evils by a country mile

I wouldn't trust either of them:)

Delirium · 02-05-2018 07:29PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

The link to the article I mentioned earlier..

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/psychiatrist-says-to-suggest-abortion-a-solution-to-mental-illness-naive-in-the-extreme-1.3480660?mode=amp

Not that surprising since she's a patron of Iona Institute. A group that is very much opposed to abortion.

NuMarvel · 02-05-2018 07:55PM

Delirium wrote: »

Not that surprising since she's a patron of Iona Institute. A group that is very much opposed to abortion.

She opposed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act too, saying it would lead to widespread abortion in a short period of time. According to the most recent figures, that Act has allowed an average of 26 abortions a year since 2014.

And she has a track record in misrepresenting studies to suit her agenda. There's even a section about it on her Wikipedia page!

uck51js9zml2yt · 02-05-2018 08:48PM

Delirium wrote: »

Not that surprising since she's a patron of Iona Institute. A group that is very much opposed to abortion.

So what?
George Soros is accused of funding Amnesty in its campaign and amnesty accused of taking foreign donations which is against the rules.

I assume you've read the study!

I'm sure you haven't and neither have I. So whose to say?

This debate goes around in the same pattern. Pro repeal are right, everything pro life say is wrong, ignored or twisted.

I'll see you on May 27th. I'll be working on the referendum 25/26th and partaking in the democratic process.

Delirium · 02-05-2018 08:52PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

So what?
George Soros is accused of funding Amnesty in its campaign and amnesty accused of taking foreign donations which is against the rules.

I assume you've read the study!

I'm sure you haven't and neither have I. So whose to say?

This debate goes around in the same pattern. Pro repeal are right, everything pro life say is wrong, ignored or twisted.

I'll see you on May 27th. I'll be working on the referendum 25/26th and partaking in the democratic process.

All I was pointing is that the person is part of a Catholic lobby group, hardly an unbiased opinion.

02-05-2018 09:00PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

So what?
George Soros is accused of funding Amnesty in its campaign and amnesty accused of taking foreign donations which is against the rules.

I assume you've read the study!

I'm sure you haven't and neither have I. So whose to say?

This debate goes around in the same pattern. Pro repeal are right, everything pro life say is wrong, ignored or twisted.

I'll see you on May 27th. I'll be working on the referendum 25/26th and partaking in the democratic process.

Plenty of pro life movements take foreign donations too on a continuous basis. Pro Choice movements don't tend to fund raise to the same extent outside of actual campaign times such as the current one to my knowledge.

At the end of the day if repeal is successful it's not going to personally affect you in a good or a bad way, other than perhaps a loved one having better choices in relation to their medical care if required and based on what they decide.

Delirium · 03-05-2018 07:23AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

She opposed the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act too, saying it would lead to widespread abortion in a short period of time. According to the most recent figures, that Act has allowed an average of 26 abortions a year since 2014.

And she has a track record in misrepresenting studies to suit her agenda. There's even a section about it on her Wikipedia page!

Read last night that she supports the use of anti-depressants during pregnancy. Medication that can result in birth defects and...... miscarriages!

"can't have an abortion but I'll give ya pills that have a good chance of a miscarriage".

....... · 03-05-2018 08:14AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 03-05-2018 12:06PM

Delirium wrote: »

All I was pointing is that the person is part of a Catholic lobby group, hardly an unbiased opinion.

Anybody who contributes money or time to either side is biased

Delirium · 03-05-2018 12:10PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anybody who contributes money or time to either side is biased

I speaking to Prof Casey being presented as a medical authority in relation to some aspects of the abortion discussion, particularly her ties to a conservative Catholic group that's is opposed to abortion.

antiskeptic · 03-05-2018 12:34PM

Delirium wrote: »

I speaking to Prof Casey being presented as a medical authority in relation to some aspects of the abortion discussion, particularly her ties to a conservative Catholic group that's is opposed to abortion.

I don't see how that's relevant. Everybody commentating holds a view. It doesn't matter where that view comes from - unless your a priori supposing that the materialist\empiricist view is neutral or something.

People are people with belief systems first and professionals second.

Delirium · 03-05-2018 12:51PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't see how that's relevant. Everybody commentating holds a view. It doesn't matter where that view comes from - unless your a priori supposing that the materialist\empiricist view is neutral or something.

People are people with belief systems first and professionals second.

Of course you don't see how it's relevant because she's arguing from a pro-life position as a member of conservative Catholic group.

It's extremely unlikely she would ever make a statement that be in support for easier access to abortion.

antiskeptic · 03-05-2018 04:46PM

Delirium wrote: »

Of course you don't see how it's relevant because she's arguing from a pro-life position as a member of conservative Catholic group.

It's extremely unlikely she would ever make a statement that be in support for easier access to abortion.

Honestly, it has nothing to do with her arguing "my" side.

It's just that anyone who comments professionally isn't operating in a vacuum. They operate out of a belief system and there's no way to tell how fervently that belief system informs their "professional" view.

Yes, you can suppose she is fervent in her faith (that supposition aided and abetted by her activism), but that doesn't mean her professional opinion is skewed by it. No more than any person professional opinion need be skewed by whatever they place their worldview faith in.

smacl · 03-05-2018 04:51PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I wouldn't trust either of them:)

For all its faults, the government has a democratic mandate and represents the citizens of this country. Organisations such as the Iona institute (aka Lolek ltd) have no such mandate and represent unknown, and quite possibly foreign, sponsors. The voices that should be heard in this debate should surely be those of Irish citizens first and foremost, rather than clandestine foreign interest groups with deep pockets.

antiskeptic · 03-05-2018 05:22PM

smacl wrote: »

For all its faults, the government has a democratic mandate and represents the citizens of this country. Organisations such as the Iona institute (aka Lolek ltd) have no such mandate and represent unknown, and quite possibly foreign, sponsors. The voices that should be heard in this debate should surely be those of Irish citizens first and foremost, rather than clandestine foreign interest groups with deep pockets.

Indeed. But the nature of clandestine is that it isn't visible. We have no way of knowing who is funding what side.

Amnesty International don't get a free lunch in this regard btw - according to your own measure.

pitifulgod · 03-05-2018 08:15PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. But the nature of clandestine is that it isn't visible. We have no way of knowing who is funding what side.

Amnesty International don't get a free lunch in this regard btw - according to your own measure.

Amnesty are still transparent on where the money comes from. There's a proportion of the vote no campaign on youtube and facebook that we don't even know which part of the no campaign is funding. In fact, there appears to be a substantial amount of funding in the no campaign that is unknown in terms of origins.

antiskeptic · 03-05-2018 11:20PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Amnesty are still transparent on where the money comes from. There's a proportion of the vote no campaign on youtube and facebook that we don't even know which part of the no campaign is funding. In fact, there appears to be a substantial amount of funding in the no campaign that is unknown in terms of origins.

What matter than an influential, non-irish agency is transparent about where it gets its money? Its non-Irish and it has exerted influence in a certain direction. If it transpires that a conservative Christian organisation in the U.S., who was transparent about where it got its money was supporting the no campaign you would have the same thing as Amnesty.

The issue raised was that external agencies are exerting influence in both cases. Whether they are transparent or not isn't the issue.

You appear to be giving Amnesty a free pass for some reason. Leaving aside that they support your side and you agree presumably with their reasoning for supporting your side, what have you got to warrant their free pass?

03-05-2018 11:28PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What matter than an influential, non-irish agency is transparent about where it gets its money? Its non-Irish and it has exerted influence in a certain direction. If it transpires that a conservative Christian organisation in the U.S., who was transparent about where it got its money was supporting the no campaign you would have the same thing as Amnesty.

The issue raised was that external agencies are exerting influence in both cases. Whether they are transparent or not isn't the issue.

You appear to be giving Amnesty a free pass for some reason. Leaving aside that they support your side and you agree presumably with their reasoning for supporting your side, what have you got to warrant their free pass?

Does this not apply to U.S. Christian fundamentalist groups that send funds to pro life groups as there is evidence of this?

smacl · 04-05-2018 05:51AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. But the nature of clandestine is that it isn't visible. We have no way of knowing who is funding what side.

Amnesty International don't get a free lunch in this regard btw - according to your own measure.

Yet Amnesty have been made return the £137 from the Open Society Foundation run by George by SIPO. How exactly is that in any way clandestine? The amount, funding organisation and person were all known. The Iona institute on the other hand received £275 in donations in 2016, where we don't know the sources but do know that all of it has been kept. So not the same at all really.

antiskeptic · 04-05-2018 07:57AM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Does this not apply to U.S. Christian fundamentalist groups that send funds to pro life groups as there is evidence of this?

Of course it applies. The point was that while criticising Iona, smacl forgets amnesty.

antiskeptic · 04-05-2018 08:03AM

smacl wrote: »

Yet Amnesty have been made return the £137 from the Open Society Foundation run by George by SIPO. How exactly is that in any way clandestine? The amount, funding organisation and person were all known. The Iona institute on the other hand received £275 in donations in 2016, where we don't know the sources but do know that all of it has been kept. So not the same at all really.

Injection of funding is one way to influence things (you can buy posters and advertising space for instance). Imprimateur from an agency perceived generally as a good egg is another. They aren't the same category in detail, but are in effect. Both foreign. Both seeking to effect the outcome.

antiskeptic · 04-05-2018 08:04AM

smacl wrote: »

Yet Amnesty have been made return the £137 from the Open Society Foundation run by George by SIPO. How exactly is that in any way clandestine? The amount, funding organisation and person were all known. The Iona institute on the other hand received £275 in donations in 2016, where we don't know the sources but do know that all of it has been kept. So not the same at all really.

Injection of funding is one way to influence things (you can buy posters and advertising space for instance). Imprimateur from an agency perceived generally as a good egg is another. They aren't the same category in detail, but are in effect. Both foreign. Both seeking to effect the outcome.

smacl · 04-05-2018 09:16AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Injection of funding is one way to influence things (you can buy posters and advertising space for instance). Imprimateur from an agency perceived generally as a good egg is another. They aren't the same category in detail, but are in effect. Both foreign. Both seeking to effect the outcome.

So not clandestine then? Amnesty are generally perceived to be 'a good egg' as you so quaintly put it because they have a long standing record for defending people's human rights across the world. With regards to their stance that Irish abortion laws contravene basic human rights, they are consistent with the UN. While Amnesty is an international organisation, it has had local representation in Ireland for decades.

antiskeptic · 04-05-2018 12:49PM

smacl wrote: »

So not clandestine then? Amnesty are generally perceived to be 'a good egg' as you so quaintly put it because they have a long standing record for defending people's human rights across the world.

Human as they define it. You can see the problem.

I don't suppose that a Christian charity operating worldwide would be viewed as anything but "religious interference" if they chose to campaign for a No vote - their otherwise good works notwithstanding

With regards to their stance that Irish abortion laws contravene basic human rights, they are consistent with the UN. While Amnesty is an international organisation, it has had local representation in Ireland for decades.

Amnesty is a global organisation and uses that globally-sourced good egg status to influence a nations referendum

I'm not sure what the UN has to do with it. Again it's their (majority) view of what constitutes human / human rights which dictates their position.

antiskeptic · 04-05-2018 12:53PM

Yes leaflet in the door

Yes means legislation possible for:

- fatal condition case
- life/health of woman
- rape/incest cases

Yes doesn't mean

- unrestricted abortion
- aborting non-fatal abnormalities

Assuming life/health grounds is a fairly restrictive then the total numbers of abortions here would be a miniscule portion of the whole. In which case why the huge campaign (if not just the thin end of the wedge). Thousands will still head to England and abortion pills will still be taken without medical supervision

Methinks there is speaking out of both sides of mouth.

....... · 04-05-2018 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments