Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Overheal · 15-05-2018 06:27PM

Suspect all you want, Holocaust besmircher.

Of course they do. But they are your wedge and we know how you hate wedges.

You agree that rape and incest should allow for an abortion, so repeal the 8th. You can then legislate to tears in any fanciful way you want, to keep those irresponsible sluts from getting “social abortion on demand” and such.

The 2013 Act still gives the unborn rights.

Overheal · 15-05-2018 06:29PM

Perhaps you require proof of administered birth control to seek an abortion. I don’t know. But you’re not trying very hard to think of ways to keep the whores from having abortions you’d just rather use them to deny abortions to all.

....... · 16-05-2018 08:24AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2018 11:07AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That was what you drew from it. I can't help your mind.

"The cohort under discussion" I think was your most nonsensical reference term.

That reference term seeks to avoid your supposing I am talking about all women. Suggest an alternative if you don't like the term

When probed it turned out you had some mad idea that people were going to "abort for sport" and you outlined a notion where people would bet on who got pregnant first with the idea of the winner getting an abortion.

That was a thought experiment. By all means insert whatever situation is characterized by the most careless, selfish, puerile behaviours. Unless of course, you assume there is no careless, selfish, puerile behaviour - a sugar and spice and all things nice scenario.

I believe you have also used the term "the lowest of the low", when referring to women who were "irresponsible enough" to get pregnant?

There will be a lowest of the low scenario. The most careless, the most selfish, the most puerile. Unless you've a problem categorizing behaviour from a range ignoble to noble, I can't see the difficulty here.

Why the pretence now that you have not been engaged in slut shaming the entire time?

See above.

....... · 16-05-2018 11:13AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2018 11:18AM

Overheal wrote: »

Suspect all you want, Holocaust besmircher.

On mans besmircher is anothers denier. I suggest we steer clear of the word. We have been warned.

Of course they do. But they are your wedge and we know how you hate wedges.

Hmmm. Some clarification required here.

I accept the YES "wedge". That means acceptance of rare cases where, despite my generally considering both lives to have equal value, the woman's plight is valued more unto considering abortion as the right course.

Do you accept my No "wedge". That means acceptance of rare cases where, despite your generally considering the woman's life/autonomy/etc to have more value, the babies plight is valued more unto not accepting abortion as right course.

In other words you would withold (if you could) women in my "wedge" having abortions. That the babies life has more value than her autonomy in those cases.

-

If you don't accept my wedge, then I must conclude your value on life in the womb as lower than the lowest possible motivation for having an abortion. We would have some indication of what it means when you say you value life in the womb.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2018 11:20AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think you're ability to string an argument together is either deficient or clouded with emotion.

I'll leave be answering you until such time as a point is seen to it.

....... · 16-05-2018 11:28AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 16-05-2018 11:49AM

*BUMP*

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.

....... · 16-05-2018 01:10PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 16-05-2018 01:13PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

He already stated on the AH thread that he doesn't trust the opinions and thoughts of women who have actually had abortions on the matter, apparently they aren't a good way to measure whether its a positive/negative life event, something about self condemnation.....

Overheal · 16-05-2018 06:57PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

On mans besmircher is anothers denier. I suggest we steer clear of the word. We have been warned.

Hmmm. Some clarification required here.

I accept the YES "wedge". That means acceptance of rare cases where, despite my generally considering both lives to have equal value, the woman's plight is valued more unto considering abortion as the right course.

Do you accept my No "wedge". That means acceptance of rare cases where, despite your generally considering the woman's life/autonomy/etc to have more value, the babies plight is valued more unto not accepting abortion as right course.

In other words you would withold (if you could) women in my "wedge" having abortions. That the babies life has more value than her autonomy in those cases.

-

If you don't accept my wedge, then I must conclude your value on life in the womb as lower than the lowest possible motivation for having an abortion. We would have some indication of what it means when you say you value life in the womb.

I don’t find you well equipped to query my values when you think abortion is genocide.

As I said, you are offering up no proposals such that Ireland can allow abortion for one and not the other. I’ve already given you at least one option, to make sure those ignoble whoring sluts don’t get away with opening their legs. You’re welcome to suggest others. Either way I trust folks that understand that rape is a thing that exists, that they will vote yes and move to the next stage of the process, which is new legislation. There you can bemoan abort for sport or whatever clever lingo you want to concoct to make it appear as though you are some intellectual not engaged in the mystic arts of slut shaming.

Overheal · 16-05-2018 08:03PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

He already stated on the AH thread that he doesn't trust the opinions and thoughts of women who have actually had abortions on the matter, apparently they aren't a good way to measure whether its a positive/negative life event, something about self condemnation.....

Women aren’t to be trusted for their opinions, only to raise children hell or high water :rolleyes:

Delirium · 17-05-2018 08:00AM

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t find you well equipped to query my values when you think abortion is genocide.

As I said, you are offering up no proposals such that Ireland can allow abortion for one and not the other. I’ve already given you at least one option, to make sure those ignoble whoring sluts don’t get away with opening their legs. You’re welcome to suggest others. Either way I trust folks that understand that rape is a thing that exists, that they will vote yes and move to the next stage of the process, which is new legislation. There you can bemoan abort for sport or whatever clever lingo you want to concoct to make it appear as though you are some intellectual not engaged in the mystic arts of slut shaming.

MOD NOTE

Please cease overly provocative/misogynistic language.

Also, anti has been warned off posting about "abort for sport" so it would be appreciated if you didn't try to bring it back into the thread.

Thanks for your attention.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 11:14AM

Overheal wrote: »

As I said, you are offering up no proposals such that Ireland can allow abortion for one and not the other. I’ve already given you at least one option,

Repeal then legislate? How legislate for the cohort under discussion? Difficult

Retain then legislate? How legislate for rapes? Difficult?

rape is a thing that exists

So are pregnancies/abortions for the worst of reasons. You accept that much it seems.

It seems to me that the range "ignoble reasons to noble reasons" will form something of a normally distributed curve. The cohort under discussion (CUD's let's call it) at one end, the rapes and FFA's at the other.

The reality is that there'll be a big chunk in the middle called lifestyle/social/socio-economic. To the left side of the curve: increasing selfishiness, carelessness, cynicism. To the right: increasing nobility, pain, anguish.

There is no way to legislate for it all. No way. You simply have to decide whether the value of life in the womb that ought not be thrown away for reasons to the left side of the curve are worth the pain and suffering that will borne with retention of the 8th.

You can do tangible things to alleviate pain and anguish. You can work to prevent unwanted pregnancies, you can financially support, emotionally and socially encourage, alter adoption laws, legislate for as many difficult cases as you can, do with rape what you can. All to reduce, if not eliminate that which stands on the right of the curve.

You can minimize, as best you can, the pain and anguish to the right. And retain all the value of life in the womb.

You cannot legislate to exclude carelessness and selfishness. And so you must lose the value of life in the womb.

SusieBlue · 17-05-2018 11:16AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Repeal then legislate? How legislate for the cohort under discussion? Difficult

Retain then legislate? How legislate for rapes? Difficult?

So are pregnancies/abortions for the worst of reasons. You accept that much it seems.

It seems to me that the range "ignoble reasons to noble reasons" will form something of a normally distributed curve. The cohort under discussion (CUD's let's call it) at one end, the rapes and FFA's at the other.

The reality is that there'll be a big chunk in the middle called lifestyle/social/socio-economic. To the left side of the curve: selfishiness, carelessness, cynicism. To the right: nobility, pain, anguish.

There is no way to legislate for it all. No way. You simply have to decide whether the value of life in the womb that ought not be thrown away for reasons to the left side of the curve are worth the pain and suffering that will borne with retention of the 8th.

You can do tangible things to alleviate pain and anguish. You can work to prevent unwanted pregnancies, you can financially support, emotionally and socially encourage, alter adoption laws, legislate for as many difficult cases as you can, do with rape what you can. All to reduce, if not eliminate that which stands on the right of the curve.

You can minimize, as best you can, the pain and anguish to the right. And retain all the value of life in the womb.

You cannot legislate to exclude carelessness and selfishness. And so you must lose the value of life in the womb.

You sound more like you have more issues with women who enjoy healthy sex lives than you do with abortion.

....... · 17-05-2018 11:29AM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 11:30AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

You sound more like you have more issues with women who enjoy healthy sex lives than you do with abortion.

Overheal (somewhat grudgingly) appears to accept reality. It ain't easy to get someone on the other side to relent.

You seem insistent on denying that some pregnancies will arise from utter carelessness. And that some abortions will be desired for selfish, puerile reasons.

Perhaps you suppose that there is no such thing as selfishness and carelessness, once sex is involved.

SusieBlue · 17-05-2018 11:37AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Overheal (somewhat grudgingly) appears to accept reality. It ain't easy to get someone on the other side to relent.

You seem insistent on denying that some pregnancies will arise from utter carelessness. And that some abortions will be desired for selfish, puerile reasons.

Perhaps you suppose that there is no such thing as selfishness and carelessness, once sex is involved.

No I did not, I actually fully disclosed a few weeks back that I didn't doubt a small minority of women will seek abortion due to being careless with contraception.

I don't believe women who are that irresponsible will make good parents, so I see no benefit in forcing a baby they do not want on them.
Its actually selfish to insist otherwise, because you are resigning an innocent baby to an unwilling mother just so your own morals are upheld.
Even though the woman or the "cohort under discussion" might not share those morals.
That is the absolute height of self interest and selfishness on your part.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 11:50AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I don't believe women who are that irresponsible will make good parents, so I see no benefit in forcing a baby they do not want on them.

It seemed a minute ago you were denying it - supposing I had something against sex. Now you accept it.

I'll hold to the latter.

You are arguing that the baby is better off dead that it be born and loved by a society who has improved it's adoption laws.

Phew!

Its actually selfish to insist otherwise, because you are resigning an innocent baby to an unwilling mother just so your own morals are upheld.

If the mother chooses to keep it, the baby is wanted enough (given that's the standard for us all). If she doesn't. the baby can be adopted.

SusieBlue · 17-05-2018 11:57AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seemed a minute ago you were denying it - supposing I had something against sex. Now you accept it.

I'll hold to the latter.

You are arguing that the baby is better off dead that it be born and loved by a society who has improved it's adoption laws.

Phew!

If the mother chooses to keep it, the baby is wanted enough (given that's the standard for us all). If she doesn't. the baby can be adopted.

You clearly do have something against women who enjoy healthy sex lives. Otherwise you wouldn't keep harping on about the "cohort under discussion". You previously made very crude references to women who would abort for fun, or play Russain roulette with their fertility.
It doesn't sound like you have a good opinion of any women, and you seem to resent those who are sexually active.

Improving adoption laws is of no help to a woman who CANNOT gestate a pregnancy.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 12:03PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

You clearly do have something against women who enjoy healthy sex lives. Otherwise you wouldn't keep harping on about the "cohort under discussion". You previously made very crude references to women who would abort for fun, or play Russain roulette with their fertility.
It doesn't sound like you have a good opinion of any women, and you seem to resent those who are sexually active.

Improving adoption laws is of no help to a woman who CANNOT gestate a pregnancy.

Look a few post back to one to Overheal. It lays out the reason why I focus on this cohort. This cohort exists but is, of course, a very thin end of the wedge.

But it is a wedge. Just like rape and FFA is a wedge.

Unlike Yes however I want to look beyond the wedge, I don't want to keep to it and it alone.

SireOfSeth · 17-05-2018 12:42PM

J C wrote: »

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

6th commandment is: “You shall not murder”. So while we’re not being asked to vote on your original question (re: unlimited abortion). I believe that a Christian can morally vote for removal of the 8th (allowing women to terminate their pregnancies when they believe they need to).

Overheal · 17-05-2018 04:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

It seemed a minute ago you were denying it - supposing I had something against sex. Now you accept it.

I'll hold to the latter.

You’ve been the only one driving a narrative that pro-choice people don’t understand that giving people the freedom of choice means giving them the freedom to make a bad choice or a choice you don’t agree with.

So yes it’s appreciated if you would stop that false narrative thank you.

EirWatchr · 17-05-2018 09:28PM

I attended a talk given today in Dublin by Baroness Nuala O'Loan, ex. police ombudsman in the north, and member of the House of Lords in the UK.

She gave a very clear, factual, picture of where abortion legislation has led in the UK, and what it would indicate for Ireland. All of Ireland should hear what she has to say, but I doubt they will, because she hasn't been invited by public media here to speak.

A lot of what she had to say is familiar from what we've heard from the pro-life campaign, but a few things she said came as a surprise:

* Of the 8 legal grounds for abortion in the UK, 97% of abortions are under mental health grounds. That we've heard. GPs in the UK (those who will sign for abortions) are known to have pre-signed forms ready for any woman who comes in asking for an abortion. All she has to do is tell the staff nurse its affecting her mental health, and the nurse simply co-signs the Doctor's pre-signed form. There is no legal requirement for a mental health assessment.

* In the UK, they must record the grounds/reason for abortions that are taking place. Ireland would not have that information (only abortion numbers) because the proposed legislation makes no requirement to report the reason for termination.

* When asked about our politicians claim that Ireland would have no private abortion clinics, her answer was to say she's heard all the RTE reports about the resourcing problems in the HSE, and that many Doctors here will be unwilling/unequipped for abortions. Her answer was: "someone here will have to do all these abortions."

* Maire Stopes (the abortions clinics in the UK) are only obliged to record any medical complication or misdemeanours with abortions as long as the woman is on the premises. There is no record or statistics of medical complications after they leave the clinic. One recorded case involved a woman, swaying and obviously unwell, being escorted out of the clinic and told she couldn't stay overnight. She died from a torn uterus, leading to Marie Stopes being barred from performing abortions (evidence of unqualified staff is also known.)

* She is currently putting a bill through parliament, to support consciousness objection to performing abortions. Medical staff are legally entitled not to be involved with abortion, but in reality they have been ostracised and bypassed for career promotion, and many ended up leaving the profession, which has resulted in an acute shortage of obstetric staff in the UK. (Similar reports from other countries, such as Sweden).

Those previous two points would seem to make nonsense of the claim that having it in Ireland would somehow deliver safe abortion and safe maternity care (She gave the figures for Ireland's maternal health care and survival rates being the best in the world).

* The UK's abortion legislation has lead, in practice, effectively to abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. She remarked that Ireland's proposed legislation, in practice, will effectively become abortion on demand up to 24 weeks (that's the point, she noted, at which the baby moves, reacts to familiar sounds/voices, and when its abortion will involve injecting its heart to prevent it being born alive and left to die, which has happened in many cases.)

Some comments from the audience included one man who was angry that our President has remained silent on the matter. Another brave, upset, young woman expressed disgust at people using FFA as an excuse for wanting abortion - she had recently lost twins born with FFA, and said the time she got to hold them was precious, and the dignity and care they received in the maternity hospital was wonderful - she was angry and horrified (visibly shaking) that anyone could contemplate just "scraping them out" and packing them off.

I came back feeling sickened for what we're actually contemplating letting into this country.

Defunkd · 17-05-2018 10:04PM

^
I was reading The Spectator (UK magazine) a few weeks ago and they reckoned that the proposed Irish legislation "goes beyond" British legislation. The article didn't elaborate but i'm assuming it is in relation to the 6 month/mental health wildcard.

antiskeptic · 17-05-2018 10:15PM

Overheal wrote: »

You’ve been the only one driving a narrative that pro-choice people don’t understand that giving people the freedom of choice means giving them the freedom to make a bad choice or a choice you don’t agree with.

So yes it’s appreciated if you would stop that false narrative thank you.

Don't know what your taking pot shots for, Mister. You've got a post to be answering. Post 228 on the Politics thread.

Remember?

You can respond here.

-

The 8th stands accused of causing the death of women. It's an intrinsic part of Yes wrapping paper.

But is it true?

Savita is exhumed again and again for one reason and one reason only: to condemn the 8th.

So lets look: Savita and death-by-the-8th.

SireOfSeth · 17-05-2018 10:17PM

Would it make you feel better to not let it into this country and continue to export the issue?

Overheal · 17-05-2018 10:53PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Don't know what your taking pot shots for, Mister. You've got a post to be answering. Post 228 on the Politics thread.

Remember?

You can respond here.

-

The 8th stands accused of causing the death of women. It's an intrinsic part of Yes wrapping paper.

But is it true?

Savita is exhumed again and again for one reason and one reason only: to condemn the 8th.

So lets look: Savita and death-by-the-8th.

Already been told to drop the Savita issue. You’re of one mind about it that frankly, I and many others are not. You’re welcome to remain in the fantasy that the 8th hasn’t killed or harmed anyone but that doesn’t make it true. Any other fig leaves or was that your only one?

NuMarvel · 18-05-2018 06:15AM

Defunkd wrote: »

^
I was reading The Spectator (UK magazine) a few weeks ago and they reckoned that the proposed Irish legislation "goes beyond" British legislation. The article didn't elaborate but i'm assuming it is in relation to the 6 month/mental health wildcard.

"Mental health wildcard". No wonder we have to have campaigns to end stigma against mental health :rolleyes:

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments