Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Turtwig · 14-05-2018 04:29PM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Doesn't the bible also say that gay people should not be together? How dod you come to accept living in a country where gay people can marry?

Mod:

The topic of thread is abortion. Not LGBTQI.
The poster you are posing this question to is currently banned from the forum.

Overheal · 14-05-2018 04:44PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't seem to be following very well. I'm not against abortion no matter what.

Now that you're back.

Perhaps youve misread but I wasn’t addressing you. I was speaking to another poster, someone which can distinguish between things like abortions and genocides. Ta.

Turtwig · 14-05-2018 05:49PM

Overheal wrote: »

Perhaps youve misread but I wasn’t addressing you. I was speaking to another poster, someone which can distinguish between things like abortions and genocides. Ta.

Mod:

Please cease from the personal side swipes. You could have just said

"Perhaps youve misread but I wasn’t addressing you. I was speaking to another poster"

Instead you proceeded to make a dig at another poster. This is not desirable. Furthermore, please note even if you state something directly to one poster it does not grant exclusivity from other posters replying to either you or the intended recipient.

Overheal · 14-05-2018 06:18PM

PM sent.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 09:23AM

Although a slogan-riddled bun fight in many ways (who let mattie mcgrath in?), last nights debate nailed a couple of things for the undecided.

1. The perma-focus on the 'difficult cases' by Yes. Mary Lou underscored it herself when she was 'granted' these so as to talk about the much larger issue. Faux (politicians) indignation that difficult cases could be glossed over.

Yes simply can let people take their eye off the difficult cases - else 'social' abortion will rise to the surface.

2. What lies behind the headlines. The Institute of obs and gyns not actually standing for Yes - rather, half the executive cobbled together, its membership never asked.

3. The wisdom of having a lawyer on your side. Its a pity the chair of the investigation into what happened Savita came out in a private capacity for Yes. Otherwise the report's findings would have demolished the 8th as responsible. No couldn't go there as the nuance betwèen the official report and the private view of one member of the team who wrote the report would have been lost in the bun fight atmosphere.

4. The power of a killer punch. Boylan was K.O.ed by being told to go back to school. As someone in afterhours noted, he'll be dropped for the next game. Or his glass jaw will ne exposed again. Dont think he scored a point all night.

5. Politicians can't be trusted with this. Mary Lou, tho best of the three was seriously hampered by the fact that the electorate are too intimate with this for standard politic-speak to function. The good senator underscored this with his urge that we dont trust politicians - "and I'm one of them."

6. Shooting yourself in the foot. Mary Lou reiterated the claim that the Constitution is too blunt an instrument - despite a supreme court ruling, despite the protection of life during pregnancy act. We three watching all exclaimed "blunt instrument! what do you think abortion on demand is" given the drumbeat focus by Yes on difficult cases. That same thought is likely to have cropped up in undecided minds.

7. The need for No to grant more to deal with difficult cases. Mention was made 'legislation can deal with these' bit not enough done. Perhaps because there is a range in No from some liberalisation to very strict. Hopefully they'll work on this.

Overall, a good nights work in difficult circumstances. Maria Steen a clear man of the match.

....... · 15-05-2018 09:29AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 11:48AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Judging by comments from the Yes side on After Hours (ranging from howling to the moon at RTE > grudging admission that it didn't go at all well for Yes), we're left supposing that the No side won.

In that event we must consider who, from the No side did the most damage to Yes. In that regard it was Maria (with quiet, determined assistance from Dr. Monaghan).

....... · 15-05-2018 11:50AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 11:54AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Whatever you're claims about tactics, the win was there and MS did the most damage.

S'all./

NuMarvel · 15-05-2018 12:32PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Judging by comments from the Yes side on After Hours (ranging from howling to the moon at RTE > grudging admission that it didn't go at all well for Yes), we're left supposing that the No side won.

In that event we must consider who, from the No side did the most damage to Yes. In that regard it was Maria (with quiet, determined assistance from Dr. Monaghan).

Success in debates like these is measured in how many minds you change, not in how many points you think your side scored.

I can't see how the No side's performance (and that's what it was, a performance) changed any minds. Indeed, the attitude displayed by many No campaigners on the programme is likely to work against their campaign, not for it.

....... · 15-05-2018 12:52PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 12:54PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Success in debates like these is measured in how many minds you change, not in how many points you think your side scored.

Obviously.

I can't see how the No side's performance (and that's what it was, a performance) changed any minds. Indeed, the attitude displayed by many No campaigners on the programme is likely to work against their campaign, not for it.

I think folk can look under the heat to whatever light was emitted. There was some, like I said a few posts ago.

NuMarvel · 15-05-2018 01:04PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think folk can look under the heat to whatever light was emitted. There was some, like I said a few posts ago.

Didn't see much light there to be honest.

I especially think the "go back to school" jibe is going to come back to bite the No side in the ass, particularly the way the No supporters here and online are crowing about it. Boylan is well respected by his peers and by most if not all of his former patients. You're after royally ticking those people off, and they're not going to take that lying down. You're certainly not after convincing any of them to vote No, and have probably pushed them closer to a Yes.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 01:09PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Didn't see much light there to be honest.

I especially think the "go back to school" jibe is going to come back to bite the No side in the ass, particularly the way the No supporters here and online are crowing about it. Boylan is well respected by his peers and by most if not all of his former patients. You're after royally ticking those people off, and they're not going to take that lying down. You're certainly not after convincing any of them to vote No, and have probably pushed them closer to a Yes.

I trust people will see the root. The jibe was just a portion of the right hook which floored Prof Boylan. You knew that what was being read out is the obstetric view promulgated to people. You cant just retract that and plough another furrow for the purposes of yes.

Delirium · 15-05-2018 01:21PM

Haven't seen the show yet but did get a laugh from one of the vote No side and their attempt to fact-check a claim on the show

https://twitter.com/sweetoblivion26/status/996285273137930240

NuMarvel · 15-05-2018 01:25PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I trust people will see the root. The jibe was just a portion of the right hook which floored Prof Boylan. You knew that what was being read out is the obstetric view promulgated to people. You cant just retract that and plough another furrow for the purposes of yes.

The jibe is symptomatic of the No's campaign though. If it had just been a once off, you might be right about how people would take it on board. But coupled with the image problem the No campaign has, it's just going to feed into the stereotype of the No side being callous hardliners.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 01:56PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

The jibe is symptomatic of the No's campaign though. If it had just been a once off, you might be right about how people would take it on board. But coupled with the image problem the No campaign has, it's just going to feed into the stereotype of the No side being callous hardliners.

I can't say I've seen much of either sides talking heads to know. There was a hardline No-er on the Late Late a few weeks back but she didn't get much of a spoke in. Other than that it seems vitriolic all round.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 02:01PM

Macha wrote: »

You don't know before 12 weeks that your child will have a disability. Fatal foetal abnormalities are normally identified around the 20 week mark.

I'm not sure what this has to do with Minister Harris' claim that abortion on the grounds of disability won't be permitted. I mean, there will be cases of disability detected before 12 weeks and with a no-reason-for-abortion regime, it seems to me that abortion on the basis of disability will be permitted.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 02:13PM

The Irish Medical Council guidelines states that:

“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.”

Could any YES-er please attempt to reconcile the above with the YES-promoted notion that a women need to be in some kind of clear and present danger before a termination to save her life be carried out? That the doctors hands are tied, by the 8th, whilst she is knocking on death's door?

Substantial: having substance, not spurious. For example: a malignant cancer, currently in remission due to a drug regime, could come back if the drugs are halted due to pregnancy. That's a risk that has substance.

Not immediate: There is no need to wait until the malignant cancer develops before termination is decided upon.

Not inevitable: it need not be that the cancer is an inevitable development. If it is reasonable to suppose it could then a termination is permissible.

NuMarvel · 15-05-2018 03:01PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't say I've seen much of either sides talking heads to know. There was a hardline No-er on the Late Late a few weeks back but she didn't get much of a spoke in. Other than that it seems vitriolic all round.

There's been plenty of examples of the No's hardline stance. Even today, there's a midwife in the paper talking about making rape victims have their babies if they don't agree to adoption or keeping the baby after birth.

If you don't think the public will see that as a hardline stance, then you really don't understand the public's views on the issue.

....... · 15-05-2018 03:35PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 03:48PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Downs Syndrome?

....... · 15-05-2018 04:23PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 15-05-2018 04:26PM

....... wrote: »

No it cant.

10 to 13 weeks apparently.

But since we’ve already established it’s okay to abort a rape baby there’s no sanctity of life argument to be had there.

Delirium · 15-05-2018 04:27PM

The Journal are fact checking the show over on Twitter and having a read through (seeing a number of False in relation to comments by No side)

this did catch my eye as it was mentioned on this thread recently.

https://twitter.com/thejournal_ie/status/996416121082400768

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 04:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

But since we’ve already established it’s okay to abort a rape baby there’s no sanctity of life argument to be had there.

Not for one who suppose carelessness, selfishness = whore.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 05:00PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's been plenty of examples of the No's hardline stance. Even today, there's a midwife in the paper talking about making rape victims have their babies if they don't agree to adoption or keeping the baby after birth.

I suppose Churchill didn't love Stalin's ways.

If you don't think the public will see that as a hardline stance, then you really don't understand the public's views on the issue.

I suppose the public as seeing abortion on demand a hardline stance.

The question is whether they will plump for one hardline stance or the other

Overheal · 15-05-2018 05:26PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not for one who suppose carelessness, selfishness = whore.

Rich from the Holocaust = Abortion caucus

Overheal · 15-05-2018 05:32PM

Besides you’re the lad carefully using the word “whore” rather than “slut”, to besmirch others who point out that calling women’s reasons for abortions as “puerile, selfish, etc” is slut-shaming.

Well, of course a whore isn’t a slut: ‘a whore does what a slut does, but for money’. Right? I have to imagine this is the logic being deployed here to say with a straight face that you aren’t engaged in the slut-shaming stance against those who would seek abortions for reasons you personally disagree with.

antiskeptic · 15-05-2018 06:15PM

Overheal wrote: »

Besides you’re the lad carefully using the word “whore” rather than “slut”, to besmirch others who point out that calling women’s reasons for abortions as “puerile, selfish, etc” is slut-shaming.

"Women's reasons". Are you implying I mean:

a) All women's reasons for abortions are selfish, careless, puerile, etc.

b) Some womens reasons for abortion are selfish, careless, puerile,etc.

If the latter, are you suggesting that no women fall pregnant as a result of utter carelessness? And that abortions sought subsequently aren't sought for very selfish and puerile reasons?

I suspect you'll not answer but we live in hope.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments