Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Overheal wrote: »

Ridiculous. Society is being asked to amend its constitution. From there you can still legislate a baseline for what is acceptable and what is not.

We already have a good indication of what the legislation is going to be. Abortion on demand.

I'll work off foreseeable reality - not wishful thinking.

This Pandora’s Box/Slippery Slope fallacy is not fooling anyone.

Abortion on demand would mean we span to the bottom of the slope. We have to return autonomy to the most careless, selfish and puerile. As well as everyone else.

In order to do this we have to value the autonomy of the most careless, cynical, selfish and puerile more than we do the life in the womb.

Hence zero value for the life in the womb. Unless you prize carelessness, cynicism, selfishness and puerility highly - in which case the value of the life in the womb can be set at just a shade under that so as to permit abortion.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Loathe tho' I am to stamping feet, I don't want you bursting a blood vessel either.

Overheal wrote: »

More absurdity. Keep it up.

Let’s pretend that the law will be AoD, 12 weeks. Any reason at all, the Pats didn’t win the Super Bowl. Whatever.

At 13 weeks the fetus has infinite value. Fixed that for you.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

Attend to the argument presented to you or leave it alone. Avoid misdirection (my argument works fine with AoD to 12 weeks). Avoid hands in the air. Avoid declaring some kind of victory for yourself (I mean, this is discussion forum no-no).

So, the Psychological Society of Ireland has come out in support of repeal. Their position, not surprisingly, is based on "fact based research" which can be downloaded.

https://www.psychologicalsociety.ie/footer/PSI-News


Interesting stuff - see bold:

2. The overwhelming majority of women report feelings of relief after an abortion. Those who maintain feelings of regret over time are affected mostly by societal stigma and the lack of social support.
Empirical research demonstrates that 95% to 99% of women who have had a termination report abortion is the right decision for them at all time points over three years while the remaining 1% to 5% who maintained feelings of regret were affected mostly by the stigma of abortion and low social support (Rocca et al., 2015). The vast majority of scientific literature on abortion and mental health identifies stigma, lack of support and previous mental health as the main factors that influence psychological well-being following an abortion (APA, 2008; Charles et al. 2008; AMRC, 2011; Center for Reproductive Rights, 2014; Major et al.2009; Rocca et al., 2015). Individuals who live in a “sociocultural context that encourages women to believe that they ‘should’ or ‘will’ feel a particular way after an abortion can create a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby societally induced expectancies can become confirmed; hence, the sociocultural context can shape a woman’s appraisal of abortion not only at the time that she undergoes the procedure but also long after the abortion ” (Major et al., 2009). Empirical research has noted that the burden of [abortion] falls hardest on the most vulnerable and that “reducing the stigma, minimising the social and economic consequences of unintended pregnancies, improving access to highly effective modern contraception, and ensuring legal and safe abortions would generate tangible improvements to [physical and mental] health” (The Lancet, 2018, p. 1121).

Most women don't feel regret. Those who do point to:

Stigma - nothing to do with me

Lack of support - nothing to do with me

Previous mental health - distanced from me w.r.t. moral agent.


Let's suppose people have a conscience. And let's suppose someone has a guilty conscience after an abortion. "Empirical science" rolls into town and starts asking questions.

- Are people who feel guilty about abortion going to say they feel guilty about abortion (i.e. potentially point the finger at themselves)? Or are they going to say they're fine and dandy? It's like one of these "experiments" to measure the power of prayer. Get a load of folk who say they are Christians into a room, set them praying for healing and get out the measuring tape. Like, it's ridiculous! What if this God who man decides to measure doesn't want to be measured? No matter: empirical science is like magic dust. Sprinkle it over anything that has passing resemblance to science and you're off and running.

- Are people who are prepared to say they feel guilty about abortion going to point the finger at themselves? Where's the control against that?


A note on this "fact based research" emanating from the Center for Reproductive Rights. It's very name gives you a clue into the way the wind blows in this organisation: "We envision a world where every woman is free to decide whether and when to have children; where every woman has access to the best reproductive healthcare available; where every woman can exercise her choices without coercion or discrimination."



_

Again, the bolded section.

4. Robust, high quality scientific research by organisations such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) has concluded that abortion does not harm women’s mental health.
The overall results of research on abortion and mental health have concluded that studies with high quality evidence tend to be neutral and suggest little to no differences between women who had abortions and their comparison groups while studies with the most flawed methodology consistently find negative mental health sequelae. (APA 2008; Charles et al. 2008; AMRC, 2011; Kessler, RC. and Schatzberg, AF. 2012). Findings from several reviews indicate where studies are of better quality, controlling for previous mental health problems and accounting for other confounding factors,the risk of mental health problems was no greater following an abortion compared with a live birth. (APA 2008; Charles et al., 2008; Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, 2011). A comprehensive review by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) on abortion and mental health found that when a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, rates of mental health problems will be largely unaffected whether she has an abortion or goes on to have a live birth and abortion does not appear to harm their mental health (AMRC, 2011; Gauthreaux et al. 2017; Biggs et al. 2017).

Hang on. There is no difference to mental health outcomes whether the unwanted pregnancy continues on to live birth or whether it continues on to abortion??

If there's no difference to mental health, why the heck are we putting mental health in as a ground for what will become 95% or so of abortions.

Overheal wrote: »

I do know what misdirection is yes. Your reply for example is misdirection. I’ve repeatedly asked you, since you hold several claims true (life begins at conception, interfering with the natural development of a child is wrong, fetal life is valued at zero etc) that you must have some point at which you feel that the unborn has zero value, else we would have a very different conversation by now.

So I’ll ask you again: at what point does the unborn stop having zero value, to you? The moment of conception? Week 6? What is it

I told you already. Conception.

Now can you deal with the issue posed you (rather than issues posed me)

NuMarvel wrote: »

What if I told you that our constitution puts zero value on fetal life at conception and that a No vote won't change that?

If you were Overheal, I'd tell you to stick to the issue posed.

You too, of course, are welcome to stick to the issue posed.

Overheal wrote: »

When have I ever pretended that giving women a choice won’t open the possibility they won’t make a choice you don’t like for reasons you don’t find noble?

Me? What about you? All I want from your lips is recognition that society is being asked to place a value on life in the womb. A value lower than the most careless, most selfish, most cynical, most puerile reasons for getting into the pregnancy in the first place and then getting out of it by way of abortion.

Autonomy uber alles. In short.

Once we're done there, we can begin to look at modelling that, like our normally distributed curve.

I (seriously) have no issue with a person placing such little value on life in the womb - each to their own. But I simply can't abide the mealy mouthed platitudes that want's the one, without admitting the other.

Live by the sword man.

Yet you seem to ignore what happens in the worst cases of the 8th: your daughter gets raped by your uncle and develops a brain tumor. So your daughters incest-rape baby prevents her from seeking all of her treatment options.

Again, the lady doth protest too much. Unlike folk who appear to decry abortion unless the woman rot in the grave, I am open to discussion on the subject. I wouldn't, at this juncture, suppose to comment on a woman who's child is subject to a FFA or a woman who is demented at the thought of carrying the "product" of a rape

But I'm not given that option. I'm given an option in which everyday, commoner garden selfishness (extending right down to the extreme examples I've "cornered" you with) holds at least some kind of sway.

And I'm not easy with that. Not by a long shot.

I accept someone will choose to have an abortion for reasons I don’t personally think are sound. And that’s only assuming the law that follows the repeal will allow it.

For some reason or other you're hiding under a log on this one. It is about as clear as it could possibly be - thanks to the Government showing it's hand. The only question revolves around how much more liberal that AoB up to 12 are we looking at.

Do YOU accept that keeping the 8th also protects “ignoble” scenarios?

I'm of the opinion that the 8th permits medical intervention in serious cases - assuming the bogheads in control would get their act together to nail things down so as to avoid the tragedy of Savita. The recent amendment also allows for abortion in other ignoble cases.

That's not to say things have found balance. Ignoble will be in there. To rectify won't be easy but it belongs to the realm of subtlety, perhaps.

What's proposed throws any subtlety overboard. This is route 1 bulldozer. No subtlety, no quarter asked or given.

Overheal wrote: »

I already had that discussion with you a couple pages ago. Of course the unborn has a varying degree of value depending on the extent of the pregnancy.

Was this answer not sufficient, or..?

Of course it's not sufficient. You're not being asked whether the life in the womb has value. You are being asked to confirm:

- whether, up to 12 weeks, the value of the life in a womb exceeds or not, the value of the bodily autonomy of the woman carrying that life. Assuming the answer is no (i.e. you agree with abortion on demand up to 12 weeks) ....

- whether, up to 12 weeks, the life in the womb has greater or less value than the most selfish, careless, cynical and puerile reasons by which bodily autonomy is to be retained by means of an abortion.

Maybe I should demand from your lips, is admission that society is already asked to place value on that life, and that of the mother. When we decide not to treat someone for sepsis because of a fetal heartbeat please explain to a plebeian like me how that isn’t placing a value on the fetus superior to that of the dying woman.

1. For the purposes of rigor, I am supposing you don't just mean "treatment for sepsis", since there are all kinds of treatments involved in treating sepsis. I assume that you mean "why not abort due to fetal heartbeat" as a treatment.

2. You would have to cite in the investigative report, which you yourself linked to, where a failure to abort because of fetal heartbeat, occurred.

3. Given you won't find such a claim in the report, I would point you to what the Constitution has to say regarding this:


Article 48.3 states: “Abortion is legally permissible where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman which cannot be prevented by other means. This risk, while substantial, may not be immediate or inevitable in all cases.”

In plain English please,

Some pro-lifers appear to decry abortion under any circumstances. Unlike them, I am open to discussion on the subject. I would be open to discussion on abortion in the case of FFA's for example. Or rape.

But I'm not given an option to be open like that. I'm given an option in which cases involving extreme carelessness (resulting in pregnancy) and selfishness (resulting in that pregnancy being considered a crisis one) and are also to be accommodated. I'm given an option which involves eradicating kids with Down's Syndrome and the like.

I do not accept for a moment your fig leaf that "legislation has yet to be enacted" - and so the above might not come about. Neither do I accept that repeal is the only way to achieve liberalisation of abortion to the extent I might find acceptable.

an opinion not shared by the courts or reinforaced by any credentials on your part. Or, reality.

I point you to the Constitution - which nails the idea that a woman need be navigating her way down the Valley of Death before abortion is permitted. I'd point you too to the word "substantial". There is a lot of latitude in the word substantial.

It is there, that clarifications leading to standard procedures ought find their place.

I point you too, to your own link. The investigation carried out doesn't point the finger at the 8th in anything like the way the Yes campaign is pointing it.

You are right that I am no expert. But I can read. You too can read, so if you've an alternative view then do, please, produce something to read from authoritative sources (eg: the Constitution or an official investigative report) that counters what I hold to be the case.

Have you seen the proposed legislation that follows repeal or are you just intent on pretending it will be a black and white piece of legislation that will make all your worst nightmares come true?

I had a chimney fire once at home. The terms and conditions of my insurance policy simply held that I was entitled to move into "similar accommodation at reasonable expense" whilst the repairs were carried out. I got in to a ding-dong with the insurance company's assessor, who held that I was only entitled to temporary accommodation costing the more or less the same as I could rent my house out, per month, on a long term rental.

His view wasn't contained in the terms and conditions. Similar accommodation at short term rental prices (i.e. reasonable, given I was short term renting) was 3 times what I could rent my house for on a long term rental.

He lost.

This is just one example of my ample dealings with legal-eez. I have good reason to suppose you can do what you like - to the extent of the terms and conditions. And I suppose that of whatever has been presented by way of indication, regarding forthcoming legislation, will result in abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. 100%. And I suppose that Downs Syndrome babies will all but disappear. 100% And I suppose that abortion on demand might well extend to 24 weeks. 75%

If you want to discuss on the basis of that potential (for I don't see any indication that you are much opposed to it yourself) then fair enough. If you want to suppose something far short of that then by all means: find yourself someone else to talk to here who believes you.

Why shouldn’t women be allowed to choose, up to 12 weeks?

Yawn. Because life in the womb has intrinsic value? Hopefully, you'll have come out from behind whatever fig leaf you've been dodging around and certified that you prize life in the womb lower than the lowest possible motivation for an abortion.

It has nothing to do with you. That is a choice private to her.

You wouldn't say that if the child was 2 weeks old. We merely differ on when value commences.

The only new reality here is bringing these women back from the Uk to Ireland to fall back under Irish jurisdiction and care.

As I have said: Yes merely shifts the rug under which crisis pregnancies are currently being swept, to this side of the Irish sea. Nothing is mentioned about reducing the crisis aspect of the crisis pregnancy. Outside aborting it, that is.

You seem confident no new abortions will be added to the current number. That somehow, we won't crank up pro-rata with the UK to approx 3 times the current amount.

In a kind of a way it doesn't matter at all to you if we do crank up 3 times current rates. The life in the womb is always less than the value of bodily autonomy to you. Let it be 3 times, let it be 20 times. It doesn't matter.

It matters to me. S'all. That's the difference between us.

You might not believe it. But belief, as we all know, isn't a 100% sure thing. You are signing yourself up to a potential holocaust. Willingly, cheerleadingly, happily. Be it on your head.

s we’ve cemented here: if you believe life begins at conception then murder is happening all the time even under the current law. By the strict definition of life at conception the 28-day pill regimen is an abortificeant. So what I want to hear from your lips, dog, is do you think the pill is murder and should it banned? Now I’d say we’re about square on the name calling.

Unlike you (seemingly unable to agree that: the least noble of all possible abortion motivations has more value than the life in the womb), I thought I'd made myself clear.

Life (as in, 8th amendment: value in the womb equal to the life of the woman, up to a point) begins at conception. Anything which destroys that life is murder. I would cite Jesus at this point. He equates looking at another woman lustfully as adultery. Yet there is cause to suppose actual adultery worse, in God's eyes, than the adultery arising from looking at another woman lustfully.

I'm not compelled to follow your (surely soon to follow) murder arguments down to their man-made logical conclusions. Murder, in the shades that God would refine it, is good enough for me.