Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

hill16bhoy · 10-05-2018 12:38AM

I was very interested to find out that current Roman Catholic teaching on abortion only dates from 1869.

Before that, Roman Catholic teaching was that no homicide was involved if it took place before "quickening", ie. when the mother felt the foetus move for the first time, at which point Roman Catholic teaching deemed the foetus now had a soul and a separate consciousness.

From 1591 to 1869, a period of 278 years, the Roman Catholic Church deemed that point to be at 166 days, almost 24 weeks.

So, how do people who identify as Roman Catholics square this?

Your church, up until relatively recently in the grand scheme of things, had no problem with elective abortion up to what is now the UK limit!

Do current Roman Catholics believe that abortions which took place before 1869 were fine, in accordance with Roman Catholic Church teaching of the time?

How would they compare an abortion which took place in 1868 to one which took place in 1870? Was one OK and the other murder?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517

uck51js9zml2yt · 10-05-2018 02:31AM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Wow. Just wow.

Well that sure adds to the discussion!

Overheal · 10-05-2018 03:36AM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Well that sure adds to the discussion!

So does your response. What a pathetic evasion, now that you’ve been called out for being an abject liar.

10-05-2018 04:42AM

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:)

Now that's just bull and you know it.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 06:13AM

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

smacl · 10-05-2018 08:43AM

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I was very interested to find out that current Roman Catholic teaching on abortion only dates from 1869.

Before that, Roman Catholic teaching was that no homicide was involved if it took place before "quickening", ie. when the mother felt the foetus move for the first time, at which point Roman Catholic teaching deemed the foetus now had a soul and a separate consciousness.

From 1591 to 1869, a period of 278 years, the Roman Catholic Church deemed that point to be at 166 days, almost 24 weeks.

So, how do people who identify as Roman Catholics square this?

Your church, up until relatively recently in the grand scheme of things, had no problem with elective abortion up to what is now the UK limit!

Do current Roman Catholics believe that abortions which took place before 1869 were fine, in accordance with Roman Catholic Church teaching of the time?

How would they compare an abortion which took place in 1868 to one which took place in 1870? Was one OK and the other murder?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/catholic-church-teaching-on-abortion-dates-from-1869-1.1449517

AFAIK early Christians believed that the soul entered the body when the the first breath (pneuma) was drawn, and Thomas Aquinas had it at 40 days. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood I think the salient point is that at what stage between conception and birth a new person comes into existence is a matter of belief or philosophical stance, whereas that the pregnant woman is a person is a matter of undisputed fact. As such, it seems unreasonable to equate the two as having the same or even similar value. Additionally, we live in a democracy not a theocracy, and the moral judgement of Irish Catholics regularly disagrees with the Vatican dictates, as can be seen with use of contraceptives and legalisation of gay marriage. It is worth remembering for example that the Vatican has explicitly stated that the morning after pill constitutes abortion, which is not a belief shared by many in this country.

Delirium · 10-05-2018 09:26AM

Overheal wrote: »

So does your response. What a pathetic evasion, now that you’ve been called out for being an abject liar.

MOD NOTE

Less of the personal comments please.

"attack the post, not the poster"

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 10:58AM

Overheal wrote: »

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

Did you actually read it (its not the coroners report btw)?

3 Key Causal Factors - the big reasons. All medical management failure.

Each if these big reasons is further analysed to see what contributed to its coming about . Nestled in there -amongst the systems failures is a reference to clarity being required wrt the law.

It wasn't the 8th which caused her death it was medical mismanagement with a hint of lack of legal clarity.

You're clutching at straws.

-

Could you comment on your seemingly holding that the patients assessment rather than the medics assessment ought hold sway at week 17?

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 11:07AM

Zaph wrote: »

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.

See above post and Overheal's link.The investigation said she died because of medical mismanagement.

Plenty of doctors have stated there is nothing in the 8th preventing them from terminating in such circumstances.

The investigation doesnt hold that their hands being tied (or a sense that their hands were tied) played a significant part.

Medical / systems failures right down the line.

Indeed, you'd have thought those in the firing line would have wrung 'legal restriction' for everything it was worth so as to point the finger elsewhere. And this is all it figured as in the investigation..

Clutching to this straw reminds me of Roman Catholicism's standing contra masturbation because of a single verse somewhere in the Bible.

Bubbaclaus · 10-05-2018 11:25AM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Well that sure adds to the discussion!

There's nothing else that needs to be said. Apart from you are a disgusting individual and i hope to never encounter your sick soul in real life.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 11:31AM

John Waters' article about U2's support for repeal. It struck many as confusing - the sheer absence of a rationale as to why this stance, most especially.

John Waters wrote:

And yet, I was not surprised that U2 came out for Repeal. It was only a matter of time. The world’s loudest folk band has been heading in that direction for years, its early truth-telling gradually giving way to a jostling for liberal kudos. In 2015, U2 backed another Irish referendum, supporting the bogus idea of gay marriage. As far as they’re concerned, May 25 is just the next step on the continuum of progressiveness.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/05/how-u2-betrayed-rock-n-roll

Bubbaclaus · 10-05-2018 11:33AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

John Waters' article about U2's support for repeal. It struck many as confusing - the sheer absence of a rationale as to why this stance, most especially.

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/05/how-u2-betrayed-rock-n-roll

I love the way he is still in a rage over marriage equality. Hilarious.

I wonder does he run away and hide in a safe space when he sees 2 men holding hands.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 11:42AM

Interesting angle from Marie Donnelly, a nurse. She cites figures for UK surgical (as opposed to pill) abortions.

In weeks 10/11/12, surgical abortions make up 85% or so of abortions carried out.

Since you can't be put on a waiting list for an abortion, abortions will take priority meaning others will be pushed down the list.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 11:46AM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I love the way he is still in a rage over marriage equality. Hilarious.

I wonder does he run away and hide in a safe space when he sees 2 men holding hands.

Is there any quality YES-SIRs out there this morning? Anyone?

Delirium · 10-05-2018 11:51AM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

There's nothing else that needs to be said. Apart from you are a disgusting individual and i hope to never encounter your sick soul in real life.

MOD NOTE

Carded for personal abuse.

Bubbaclaus · 10-05-2018 11:53AM

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Carded for personal abuse.

Given what I was responding to I have absolutely no regrets. Anyone that belittles the deaths of women in ireland deserves it.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 12:38PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Did you actually read it (its not the coroners report btw)?

3 Key Causal Factors - the big reasons. All medical management failure.

Each if these big reasons is further analysed to see what contributed to its coming about . Nestled in there -amongst the systems failures is a reference to clarity being required wrt the law.

It wasn't the 8th which caused her death it was medical mismanagement with a hint of lack of legal clarity.

You're clutching at straws.

-

Could you comment on your seemingly holding that the patients assessment rather than the medics assessment ought hold sway at week 17?

excuse me. Hi. Yes.

You said you prefer the coroners report. Did the Coroner report the cause of death as “hospital mismanagement?” No. No they did not. They said sepsis due to E. coli infection, something else I don’t femember the terminology of, and a miscarriage at 17 weeks.

Try the lies again?

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 12:47PM

Overheal wrote: »

excuse me. Hi. Yes.

You said you prefer the coroners report. Did the Coroner report the cause of death as “hospital mismanagement?” No. No they did not. They said sepsis due to E. coli infection, something else I don’t femember the terminology of, and a miscarriage at 17 weeks.

Try the lies again?

The cause of death of the driver of a car running into the wall is major brain trauma. The cause of death of the driver of the car running into the wall is 5 pints taken before he stepped behind the wheel.

What I mean by "cause" is "responsibility". What you mean by "cause" is "technicality"

Do you understand the difference?

Overheal · 10-05-2018 12:58PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The cause of death of the driver of a car running into the wall is major brain trauma. The cause of death of the driver of the car running into the wall is 5 pints taken before he stepped behind the wheel.

What I mean by "cause" is "responsibility". What you mean by "cause" is "technicality"

Do you understand the difference?

LMFAO

“I prefer the coroners report”

Now you want to split hairs and play the cause effect game until we get down to the cause of her death being getting married or something.

Make up your mind! Laughable.

Your PREFERRED CORONERS REPORT lists cause of death, miscarriage at 17 weeks leading to major sepsis.

Want to split hairs more than that, good sir? Then you have hospital mismanagement, there caused by a refusal to administer an abortion, due to the hospitals interpretation of Ireland’s archaic laws.

What are you going to argue next? Ah sure she wouldn’t be dead if she hadn’t been born. I’ve heard No folks already bemoan her for being from India as the cause of her death.

Keep it up. Everyone reading can have a laugh.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 01:00PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I prefer the coroners report to wikipedia.

What I mean by "cause" is "responsibility".

Reposted for effect.

Your argument relies on pretending words mean what they do not.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 01:03PM

cause of death Forensic medicine The reason or event that precipitates death Types Proximate COD, immediate COD Statistics-'Top ten' US–ASHD/HTN, CA, CVA/stroke, COPD, accidents–falls, fires, drowning, etc, pneumonia & influenza, DM, HIV, suicide, chronic liver disease & cirrhosis 'Top ten' worldwide: CAD, acute RTIs in children, CVA/stroke, diarrhea in children, COPD, TB, malaria, accidents–falls, fires, drowning, measles, other heart disease. See Death, Mechanism of death, World health.
CAUSE OF DEATH

Proximate COD
The most important, immediate, direct or actual cause, or last event or act that occurred before the chain of events leading to death
Immediate COD

The concluding or final event that actually produces death; other CODs include natural causes, HIV risk factors, injury and poisoning, dementia, periprocedural deaths associated with medical treatment or diagnostic/therapeutic procedures and devices, perinatal death (CAP Today 12/95, p57)

Overheal · 10-05-2018 01:05PM

You prefer a coroners report yet I don’t remember a coroners report that ever said “cause of death was Eddie Halvey driving drunk from the pub”

All the same, the coroner concluded her death was due to a miscarriage. Then, from the medical case report, we know the miscarriage unfolded for days while she was denied an abortion - not for medical reasons, but for legal reasons, poorly misinterpreted but legal all the same.

Overheal · 10-05-2018 01:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Interesting angle from Marie Donnelly, a nurse. She cites figures for UK surgical (as opposed to pill) abortions.

In weeks 10/11/12, surgical abortions make up 85% or so of abortions carried out.

Since you can't be put on a waiting list for an abortion, abortions will take priority meaning others will be pushed down the list.

This is laughable as well. Faux outrage,

Hate to be the one to break it to you, the inconvenient truth that is, but what do you think miscarriages and birth defects and children in general - and pregnancies - do for those same waiting lists?

....... · 10-05-2018 01:34PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 10-05-2018 03:13PM

Overheal wrote: »

LMFAO

“I prefer the coroners report”

Now you want to split hairs and play the cause effect game until we get down to the cause of her death being getting married or something.

Make up your mind! Laughable.

You've forgotten from whence you came. Savita is produced to demonstrate the cause behind the bottom line cause of death. The 8th in other words.

But it turns out medical mismanagement is the cause behind the bottom line cause of death.

According to your link.

Its no use to you/YES pointing to the bottom line cause of death. What use sepsis/miscarriage? You're attacking what lies behind.

And that turns out not to be the 8th

SusieBlue · 10-05-2018 03:48PM

The 8th caused the death of Savita. You can deny it all you want but the facts speak for themselves and you are being grossly offensive to a dead womans memory by insisting otherwise.

Her husband holds the 8th responsible. Her father holds the 8th responsible, as you can see from this link.

If she had been given an abortion when it was confirmed she was having a miscarriage, there would have been NO opportunity for the medical mismanagement to occur and no opportunity for the sepsis to develop. It isn't difficult to understand.
She would never have died if she had been granted an abortion when she requested on.

The independent professor who chaired the HSE's inquiry to her death confirmed the same.

Here are some excerpts from his report and findings on Savita's death:

The Eighth Amendment “played a major role” in the death of Savita Halappanavar during pregnancy, a leading international expert in obstetrics has said.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, who chaired the HSE inquiry into Ms Halappanavar’s death in 2012, said it was “very clear” to him Dr Katherine Asbury, the consultant treating her, had been “concerned about the legal issues” throughout her considerations as to whether to terminate the pregnancy.

Ms Halappanavar (31) died on October 28th, 2012 at Galway University Hospital, one week after she presented with back pain and was found to be miscarrying her 17-week pregnancy. Although the pregnancy was not viable, her requests for termination were refused because there was a foetal heartbeat. She contracted sepsis and died of multi-organ failure and septic shock.

So stop telling lies and cop yourself on.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 10:50AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

The 8th caused the death of Savita. You can deny it all you want but the facts speak for themselves and you are being grossly offensive to a dead womans memory by insisting otherwise.

Let's look.

Her husband holds the 8th responsible.

With respect, her husband isn't qualified to assess such things.

If she had been given an abortion when it was confirmed she was having a miscarriage, there would have been NO opportunity for the medical mismanagement to occur and no opportunity for the sepsis to develop. It isn't difficult to understand.
She would never have died if she had been granted an abortion when she requested on.

That she requested an abortion isn't relevant (unless you are promoting the idea of abortion on demand post 12 weeks). The legislation (to come) will look to medical practitioners to decide what is medically appropriate. We are asked to trust the doctors, not the woman, post 12 weeks.

The independent professor who chaired the HSE's inquiry to her death confirmed the same.

Here are some excerpts from his report and findings on Savita's death:

The professor chaired an investigative report. As I have previously posted, that report highlights the main causes resulting in Savita's death. It also highlighted contributory factors to each of those causes. Legal uncertainty doesn't figure central to the report - for example, it's contribution appears in the second listed major cause

Unless we are to turn how things are traditionally read on their head, we take the first contributing cause as the chief cause.

It is worth noting what 5 former chairs of the Irish Institute of Ob's and Gyn's have to say in todays Irish Times. I'd draw your attention to the highlighted section in particular:

Sir, – As former chairs of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, we have been horrified at some of the statements made by colleagues during this referendum campaign in relation to maternal care in Ireland.

We are particularly appalled by the comments of Dr Rhona Mahony in the Together for Yes campaign video where she states “In Ireland today, we play medical roulette with women’s lives”, and those of Dr Peter Boylan in the same video where he claims the Eighth Amendment “makes it difficult for us to treat women with compassion and give them the proper care that they need”.

These comments are simply not true. We call on them to withdraw these statements.

Each of us has had extensive experience over around 40 years in the specialty of obstetrics and gynaecology. In addition, in our privileged position as Chairs of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, we have fought to improve the standard of care for mothers and their newborn babies.

Ireland is a very safe country in which to be pregnant. The Eighth Amendment does not prevent Irish women receiving care of the highest possible standard. This is why our maternal death rate is so low. Recent Maternal Death Enquiry reports confirm that Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant.

Each one of us can stand over the care we have provided in our careers. Four of us who practised in this jurisdiction have carried out necessary surgery which resulted in termination of pregnancy in order to save and protect Irish women. We had no difficulty in so doing, and the Eighth Amendment did not prevent us from performing an ethical and medically indicated procedure.

On May 25th, Irish people will be asked to vote on whether the right to life of an unborn baby should be withdrawn. If the answer is Yes, it is the stated intention of Government to introduce legislation to enable ending the life of a perfectly healthy growing baby, in a perfectly healthy pregnant woman. That is a matter of conscience for each voter.

What this referendum is not about, and what it has never been about, is maternal healthcare.– Yours, etc,

Prof JOHN BONNAR, Former Chairman, Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Dr EAMON MCGUINNESS, Former Chairman, Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Dr CONOR CARR, Former Chairman, Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Dr JAMES CLINCH, Former Chairman, Institute of Obste-tricians and Gynaecologists; Dr MICHAEL O’HARE, Former Chairman, Institute of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, C/o Newry, Co Down.

Whilst there might be confusion regarding the application of the law, it doesn't appear to have stopped these particular doctors from acting. Confusion about the 8th is not the same thing as the 8th preventing.

-

I would add that in an environment of clear medical chaos, where an individuals performance and decision making might be expected to come under the microscope, escape routes will be sought. That's human nature, doctor or no.
In that environment, the 8th as scapegoat can be expected. Again, the good professor, seemingly acting under the confines of an official investigation, set possible legal restrictions down the list. It can't be discounted either, that the persons contributing to the report have their own axes to grind. It's very difficult to see how anything in this darn discussion can be taken as untainted by personal views.

Delirium · 11-05-2018 10:55AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That she requested an abortion isn't relevant (unless you are promoting the idea of abortion on demand post 12 weeks). The legislation (to come) will look to medical practitioners to decide what is medically appropriate. We are asked to trust the doctors, not the woman, post 12 weeks.

There are doctors on record saying that if an abortion had been provided, Savita would be alive today.

The legal situation required her health to diminish to the point where her life was in jeopardy before an abortion could be an option.

Medical care should be of a higher standard than "looks like she's dying, we can now perform an abortion".

SusieBlue · 11-05-2018 11:01AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Let's look.

With respect, her husband isn't qualified to assess such things.

That she requested an abortion isn't relevant (unless you are promoting the idea of abortion on demand post 12 weeks). The legislation (to come) will look to medical practitioners to decide what is medically appropriate. We are asked to trust the doctors, not the woman, post 12 weeks.

The professor chaired an investigative report. As I have previously posted, that report highlights the main causes resulting in Savita's death. It also highlighted contributory factors to each of those causes. Legal uncertainty doesn't figure central to the report - for example, it's contribution appears in the second listed major cause

Unless we are to turn how things are traditionally read on their head, we take the first contributing cause as the chief cause.

It is worth noting what 5 former chairs of the Irish Institute of Ob's and Gyn's have to say in todays Irish Times. I'd draw your attention to the highlighted section in particular:

Whilst there might be confusion regarding the application of the law, it doesn't appear to have stopped these particular doctors from acting. Confusion about the 8th is not the same thing as the 8th preventing.

She was miscarrying. Her baby was dying and she was kept in hospital for a week, waiting for nature to take its course, in a great deal of pain and suffering. This didn’t happen suddenly. She was left there for a week.
That in itself was a cruelty.
There was no hope for her baby.
She absolutely without a doubt should have been granted an abortion, to speed up the process so she could begin grieving for her lost child.
Which is what she wanted. She should have been allowed to make that choice.
The 12 week rule should never have been applicable because the pregnancy wasn’t viable.

You cannot deny the obvious. You are making yourself look bullheaded. You are being extremely short sighted and disrespectful.

Anyone with a brain can understand that if she had been given an abortion when she requested one, the medical mismanagement wouldn’t have happened, sepsis wouldn’t have developed and she wouldn’t have died.
She’d have gone home to grieve in peace and we’d never have heard of her.

The 8th created a grey area that tied doctors hands during an emergency. They were so concerned with interpreting the law, they refused her request just to cover themselves.
This should absolutely not happen. Doctors are there to look after people not make assumptions about the law.

Stop embarrassing yourself. The 8th had a hand in her death.
It isn’t even up for discussion. I won’t even entertain it from you.

antiskeptic · 11-05-2018 11:44AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

She was miscarrying. Her baby was dying and she was kept in hospital for a week, waiting for nature to take its course, in a great deal of pain and suffering. This didn’t happen suddenly. She was left there for a week.
That in itself was a cruelty.
There was no hope for her baby.
She absolutely without a doubt should have been granted an abortion, to speed up the process so she could begin grieving for her lost child.
Which is what she wanted. She should have been allowed to make that choice.
The 12 week rule should never have been applicable because the pregnancy wasn’t viable.

You cannot deny the obvious. You are making yourself look bullheaded. You are being extremely short sighted and disrespectful.

Anyone with a brain can understand that if she had been given an abortion when she requested one, the medical mismanagement wouldn’t have happened, sepsis wouldn’t have developed and she wouldn’t have died.
She’d have gone home to grieve in peace and we’d never have heard of her.

The 8th created a grey area that tied doctors hands during an emergency. They were so concerned with interpreting the law, they refused her request just to cover themselves.
This should absolutely not happen. Doctors are there to look after people not make assumptions about the law.

Stop embarrassing yourself. The 8th had a hand in her death.
It isn’t even up for discussion. I won’t even entertain it from you.

You just danced all over the idea of law (the proposed law)/ procedure / medical opinion and expertise.

You've danced all over the idea of conclusions drawn from a mechanism of investigation - which don't happen to concur with your position.

You've conflate the 8th with failures in developing mechanisms to allow doctors to navigate the 8th quickly.

Emotion is holding sway here. Whilst it's fine to be passionate about your view, sober assessment of the information at your disposal cant be thrown out the window.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments