Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Overheal · 09-05-2018 12:15AM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

If this gets passed, there's one thing we can be assured of.
It's that the people of this land place more value in an unborn bird than an unborn child.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1976/act/39/section/22/enacted/en/html

I'm glad people here have their priorities right!

so you’re bemoaning a legislative issue that can be fixed. You pretend as if wildlife conservation is enshrined in your constitution.

Do you have a moral disagreement with the morning after pill.

uck51js9zml2yt · 09-05-2018 08:03AM

Overheal wrote: »

so you’re bemoaning a legislative issue that can be fixed. You pretend as if wildlife conservation is enshrined in your constitution.

Do you have a moral disagreement with the morning after pill.

You're wanting to bring the unborn child into the realm of legislation, remove it's protection and be able to destroy it at will....or have you forgotten?

....... · 09-05-2018 09:22AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 12:00PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The bones of it are laid out here:

Dr. Boylan is the chairman of Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (and a prominant voice in the YES campaign). That institute would the one establishing the basis for assessing the risk involved in pregnancies up to the point of "viability" (in or around 24 weeks)

The YES campaign find the wording "serious risk" (relating to justification for abortions up to the point of viability) a bit too restrictive. Dr. Boylan doesn't see that as an issue:

"I don't really have a problem with them saying "serious risk" because if the woman regards it as serious then it is. It should be the woman's assessment of risk that counts"

In other words, the man responsible for the organisation that will practically implement head 4 of the bill is on the record stating that it will not be medical practitioners whose opinions count – but those of people who are not medically qualified to determine medical risk.

https://www.save8.ie/did-you-know-this-is-abortion-up-to-6-months/

NuMarvel · 09-05-2018 12:22PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The bones of it are laid out here:

Dr. Boylan is the chairman of Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (and a prominant voice in the YES campaign). That institute would the one establishing the basis for assessing the risk involved in pregnancies up to the point of "viability" (in or around 24 weeks)

The YES campaign find the wording "serious risk" (relating to justification for abortions up to the point of viability) a bit too restrictive. Dr. Boylan doesn't see that as an issue:

"I don't really have a problem with them saying "serious risk" because if the woman regards it as serious then it is. It should be the woman's assessment of risk that counts"

https://www.save8.ie/did-you-know-this-is-abortion-up-to-6-months/

I'm not sure using the SaveThe8th website really support your statement, but let's say there's merit to your argument. There really isn't, but lets say there is.

Even if the law was loosely interpreted, there's still no reason for believing this would lead to later abortions. We can see that when we compare other countries.

France allows abortions on request up to 12 weeks and on specified grounds after. 91% of abortions happen within this timeframe.

Sweden allows abortions on request up to 18 weeks. Yet still, 92% of abortions occurred within the first 12 weeks.

Britain doesn't have an on request model, but the health grounds apply up to 24 weeks. Yet, like France and Sweden, 92% of abortions occur within the first 12 weeks.

No matter what timeframe the law allows, the reality is that when women can have abortions early, they will have abortions early. So even if it was the case that the law wasn't adhered to as intended (and to be clear you haven't proven this to be the case at all), in practical terms the vast majority of abortions will take place within the 12 week timeframe anyway and abortions after that point will be because something has gone wrong.

....... · 09-05-2018 12:36PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 09-05-2018 01:17PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You're wanting to bring the unborn child into the realm of legislation, remove it's protection and be able to destroy it at will....or have you forgotten?

We can have a separate debate on whether a bald eagle deserves more protection than a zygote.

You yourself agree with abortion in some instances, that which the constitution doesn’t allow for. So you have your answer but you’re being false on your face about what your motives are, so you will continue to vote for women to die as a result of bad law. Either way you are condoning death, so I fail to see the reason to abandon rationale while doing so.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 01:37PM

....... wrote: »

This doesnt support your position at all.

You claimed that unrestricted abortion on request would be a lot looser than 12 weeks.

What you have given above is an argument for exceptions past 12 weeks. Which is a different matter.

In addition to that, all of the data shows that the vast majority of abortions happen by week 12, with near totality by week 16, and the outliers being due to risk of health or life to the mother - so not unrestricted access.

So once again, you have been shown to be posting scaremongering conjecture with no evidence to back it up.

I said looser. You said unrestricted. But seeing as we're at it

IF the basis for permitting an abortion post 12 weeks is based on assessment of risk AND assessment of risk lies with the mother THEN abortion post 12 weeks is as restricted as the mother wants it to be.

You'll have to do better than you done above. I've put it in logic form for you to pick apart.

....... · 09-05-2018 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 09-05-2018 03:54PM

I’d still like to know if you are okay with the morning after pill, Antiskeptic. Should women even be disallowed from cleaning themselves after intercourse to preclude the possibility they are denying the conception of life? Where is your line. You must have one? It’s material to this discussion.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 04:15PM

....... wrote: »

This still has nothing to do with 12 weeks unrestricted access.

Just on the quote you are trotting out, I think you are woefully (well not you to be fair, whoever wrote that awful tabloidy webpage you linked to) misunderstanding Boylan in this context.

But even if we allowed that you were making some sense. The near totality of abortions happen by week 16 - the stats are borne out all over the world.

What makes you think that Irish women specifically would be all trying to get late term abortions when the facts show that when early abortion is available that the only abortions post 16 weeks are tiny outliers for FFA or risk to life or health of the mother?

I really feel like you are just sort of screaming SCARY POSSIBILITY and ignoring all of the factual data available to you that show that it simply doesnt happen.

Possibly, much like your "abort for sport" scenario, you simply enjoy thinking of nonsensical scenarios that are not based in reality and then using them for some scare mongering?

Where did we start? I suggested the the unrestricted to 12 + restricted thereafter would become looser. You dont get looser that unrestricted up to 12 so the 'looser' refers to abortions post 12.

It isnt material to that position that most abortions occur pre 12. My claim involved what would happen post-12. That it would be looser than suggested.

You have said nothing yet in that regard - other than to suggest the good doctor is taken out of context - regarding post 12 week abortions. So give a context other than the one suggested by his comments.

My position doesnt give a fig whether there will be 1 or 1000 abortions post 12 weeks. It merely holds looser than 'limited access'

Can you focus?

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 04:19PM

Overheal wrote: »

I’d still like to know if you are okay with the morning after pill, Antiskeptic. Should women even be disallowed from cleaning themselves after intercourse to preclude the possibility they are denying the conception of life? Where is your line. You must have one? It’s material to this discussion.

Conception to me is fertilized egg. Anything done to prevent/interrupt the natural course of events after that is, for the sake of an encompassing term, an abortion in my eyes.

You can deduce answers to specific questions/scenarios for that I'd reckon.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 04:39PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm not sure using the SaveThe8th website really support your statement

The good doctor is either chairman of this key institute or he isnt. He either said what he said or he didnt. The source is irrelevant unless you dispute those facts.

Even if the law was loosely interpreted,

There is nothing loose about it. The basis for determining risk will lie with the woman according to the current set up / express intent of the chairman of this key institute.

We must take it as we find it

Unrestricted up to week 24 iow.

there's still no reason for believing this would lead to later abortions. We can see that when we compare other countries.

If a womans cicumstances change and a wanted pregnancy becomes an unwanted one in week 20 then unrestricted to 24 means unrestricted to week 24.

Your percentages dont matter. What matters is whether or not you have an issue with the above scenario at all

pitifulgod · 09-05-2018 04:41PM

Antiskeptic, that's somewhat of a lie. Hospitals will have to abide by the legislation which is created by the government. The exact same argument was made in relation to the protection of life bill btw. It was propaganda.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 05:23PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Antiskeptic, that's somewhat of a lie. Hospitals will have to abide by the legislation which is created by the government. The exact same argument was made in relation to the protection of life bill btw. It was propaganda.

The good doctor had already stated what will inform his opinion. The legislation doesnt dictate how the professional is to arrive at his opinion.

Could you find the legislative hole?

I mean, be rigorous here- rather than rely on generalities.

Overheal · 09-05-2018 05:40PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Conception to me is fertilized egg. Anything done to prevent/interrupt the natural course of events after that is, for the sake of an encompassing term, an abortion in my eyes.

You can deduce answers to specific questions/scenarios for that I'd reckon.

So then you want to legally restrict some forms of contraception, such as those that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall: one of the primary mechanisms of commonly administered female contraceptive pill regimens.

See? You didn’t know it but you might have committed murder with your girlfriend quite a few times already!

ohlordy · 09-05-2018 05:58PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

If a womans cicumstances change and a wanted pregnancy becomes an unwanted one in week 20 then unrestricted to 24 means unrestricted to week 24.

Is this a situation that you believe arises with any sort of regularity?
Don't you understand that the reason most abortions occur before 12 weeks in countries with legal access is that women are able to make a decision as to wanted/unwanted very early in pregnancy?
Later abortions mostly occur due to health issue with foetus/mother that arise or are discovered as pregnancy progresses.
Women do not have abortions because they got sacked at week 20 (they sue, it's illegal), because their husband ran away with his secretary at week 20, because they suddenly realised that the x-factor auditions are coming up and they want to look their best on stage...

Regardless, not wanting a pregnancy in week 20, that you wanted in week 14/16/18, is not something that gives rise to a health risk to the mother and thus is not a reason to allow a termination under the proposed legislation.

The judgement of risk that Boylan refers to is not opening it up to a woman to decide on a health risk that doesn't exist. He is saying that if a doctor diagnoses a pregnant woman with a pregnancy related health issue, and he deems the risk of it causing a major health issue if the pregnancy is continued to be 50%, then it is the woman who must decide for herself whether or not 50% is too high a risk for her to continue with the pregnancy. She will not decide the risk, she will decide if she is willing to accept that risk

Overheal · 09-05-2018 06:05PM

2011 USA, all states, 92% of abortions happened before the 13th week. 1.2% happened after the 21st week. Detailed reasons in the link

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/5113/9611/5527/Abortion_After_first_trimester.pdf

uck51js9zml2yt · 09-05-2018 10:20PM

Overheal wrote: »

We can have a separate debate on whether a bald eagle deserves more protection than a zygote.

You yourself agree with abortion in some instances, that which the constitution doesn’t allow for. So you have your answer but you’re being false on your face about what your motives are, so you will continue to vote for women to die as a result of bad law. Either way you are condoning death, so I fail to see the reason to abandon rationale while doing so.

Thanks for telling me what I agree with and condone!
You're wrong, but let's not let truth get in the way!
Btw..we don't have bald eagles here:)

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 10:25PM

Overheal wrote: »

So then you want to legally restrict some forms of contraception, such as those that prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall: one of the primary mechanisms of commonly administered female contraceptive pill regimens.

And?

See? You didn’t know it but you might have committed murder with your girlfriend quite a few times already!

How would I not know it (unless she didnt tell me)?

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 10:32PM

Overheal wrote: »

2011 USA, all states, 92% of abortions happened before the 13th week. 1.2% happened after the 21st week. Detailed reasons in the link

What does it matter what week if you don't value the life that womb anyway?

You deal in %'s. We deal in lives.

Overheal · 09-05-2018 10:49PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Thanks for telling me what I agree with and condone!
You're wrong, but let's not let truth get in the way!
Btw..we don't have bald eagles here:)

If you vote yes, or no, human life will die. So yes you do condone it. You’re welcome. No need to thank me.

Overheal · 09-05-2018 10:50PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What does it matter what week if you don't value the life that womb anyway?

You deal in %'s. We deal in lives.

The percentages get you to the number of lives yes.

We’ve already established through your silence that you would accept abortion in some percentage of scenarios rather than others so don’t give me that disingenuous tripe.

Overheal · 09-05-2018 10:51PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

And?

How would I not know it (unless she didnt tell me)?

Because a sperm can fertilize an egg and fail to attach to the uterine wall which was clinically weakened by oral contraceptives. You’d be blissfully unaware except that she is using contraceptives to ensure that the conceived life is effectively aborted by the interference with the functioning of the uterine lining.

uck51js9zml2yt · 09-05-2018 11:06PM

Overheal wrote: »

If you vote yes, or no, human life will die. So yes you do condone it. You’re welcome. No need to thank me.

I can't recall anyone dying from not having an abortion.the same can't be said of the reverse situation sadly!

Keep up the diversions though..they're great end of day reading:)

Overheal · 09-05-2018 11:15PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I can't recall anyone dying from not having an abortion.the same can't be said of the reverse situation sadly!

Keep up the diversions though..they're great end of day reading:)

So you say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

“Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist, originally from India, died on 28 October 2012 at University Hospital Galway in Ireland due to the complications of a septic miscarriage at 17 weeks' gestation. The miscarriage took seven days to unfold, and early in the process, when it was clear that the miscarriage was inevitable, Halappanavar requested an abortion. At that time the medical team had not diagnosed her with a blood infection, and her request was denied because the medical team did not judge that her life was in danger.”

Seems VERY dry cut to me: she died because she was refused an abortion. You can argue “oh that’s not what the law said it was mishandled by the hospital” but she died because she was refused an abortion. So you’re being very ignorant or very obtuse.

antiskeptic · 09-05-2018 11:50PM

Overheal wrote: »

So you say

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar

“Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist, originally from India, died on 28 October 2012 at University Hospital Galway in Ireland due to the complications of a septic miscarriage at 17 weeks' gestation. The miscarriage took seven days to unfold, and early in the process, when it was clear that the miscarriage was inevitable, Halappanavar requested an abortion. At that time the medical team had not diagnosed her with a blood infection, and her request was denied because the medical team did not judge that her life was in danger.”

Seems VERY dry cut to me: she died because she was refused an abortion. You can argue “oh that’s not what the law said it was mishandled by the hospital” but she died because she was refused an abortion. So you’re being very ignorant or very obtuse.

I prefer the coroners report to wikipedia.

I do note your reliance on the patients (rather than the medics) view in this post 12 week situation. It ties in with the good doctors stated view

Bubbaclaus · 10-05-2018 12:10AM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I can't recall anyone dying from not having an abortion.the same can't be said of the reverse situation sadly!

Wow. Just wow.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 12:24AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I prefer the coroners report to wikipedia.

I do note your reliance on the patients (rather than the medics) view in this post 12 week situation. It ties in with the good doctors stated view

Ok. Here you go.

http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

Listed miscarriage among two other reasons as the cause of death.

Dance around that with your next holier than thou piece of diatribe

Zaph · 10-05-2018 12:27AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I prefer the coroners report to wikipedia.

Of course you do because the coroner's report said she died of cardiac arrest caused by sepsis, not from "not having an abortion". But the fact remains that had she had an abortion she would most likely still be alive today.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments