Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic · 23-05-2018 09:01AM

Regarding standarization:

You have one doctor saying he has 'emptied that uterus', foetal heartbeat or no. In public / no legal / disciplinary action against him

You have Savita's case where the presence of a foetal heartbeat is cited as a cause for inaction.

Tell me: is it the law's constraint or confusion over what is permissible that applied in this particular circumstance?

I mean, foetal heartbeat or no is a clearly defined clinical event. You are either restrained by the presence of a foetal heartbeat or you are not. It's not hard to write a guideline to cover it. And not hard to implement that guideline.

Are you beginning to see what lies beneath?

antiskeptic · 23-05-2018 09:22AM

You can't sue someone for obeying the law. You can sue someone if you"re damaged when the law permitted them to act so as to prevent damage.

The lower the bar, the wider the range of cases where doctors can be sued should someone, for example, suffer serious damage to health. What will be the doctors tendency? Especially when she is no longer legally obliged to weigh up an equal right to life.

Delirium · 24-05-2018 07:21AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dying is but one very negative outcome. Being left in a permanently vegatative state, suffering widespread organ damage and congestive heart failure are undesirable too.

Such problems can be expected to occur in some cases and not others - due to lack of clarity as to what constitutes "serious risk to health" under the proposed legislation (or any legislation which doesn't put a specific value on things). Nothing changes in essence from the current situation.

Disagree. A miscarriage could be regarded in the same way as a FFA, i.e. foetus will not survive pregnancy. The 8th currently blocks FFA from being grounds for abortion as stated by supreme court.

Remove the 8th and in the event of a miscarriage/FFA, "serious risk to health" and "serious risk to life" aren't the only criteria to allow an abortion. This would have also allowed for the abortion when Savita requested it.

One way to deal with this is to unify your approach so that your handling of a particular situation is standardized across the board. Do you think McDonald's let a situation arise that results in a markedly different Big Mac's being served in different restaurants?

If they were served differently and the manager of the offending restaurant says there was confusion as to how the burger ought to be made, do you first examine the guidelines and managers training? Or do you suppose that it's not possible to produce identical burgers and dump the whole concept. Even though many restaurants do manage to produce identical burgers and don't seem to have a problem interpreting the guidelines?

To blame the law because there is patent, but by no means universal confusion about its application, is to misdirect the focus. To look in the wrong place.

Standardisation is good but it will still be constrained by the law and constitution. So FFA for example will not be allowed even with all doctors working for the same guidelines.

It's also worth noting that some pro-life doctors have said they won't work from the guidelines regarding providing an abortion. They will exercise their right to conscientious objection and not provide an abortion to a pregnant person.

The other way to deal with it is to row back further and further with the definition of 'seriousness' such that confusion over guidelines never results in whatever level of serious ill health you decide you want to avoid. Lower the bar, in other words, so that you always get over it. Make it "risk of damage to health" instead of "serious risk of damage to health" for example.

Where does that end up?

1. Little motivation to develop and implement a drive towards uniformity of service.

2. A tendency for some doctors to seek safety, not only of the patient but of themselves. This shift will arise at the point of confusion - no matter where the threshold is set. It is fear (of legal action, disciplinary hearings) brought about by confusion that's the problem. Not where you set the threshold. Safety of self occurred with Savita afterall. You're just widening the range of cases where that will occur.

3. Ever relaxing grounds for abortion.

35 years of the 8th have established that whatever laws in line with the 8th, they are never good enough to give best care to pregnant people. Savita and others have paid with their life due to the laws that are bound by the 8th.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Regarding standarization:

You have one doctor saying he has 'emptied that uterus', foetal heartbeat or no. In public / no legal / disciplinary action against him

You have Savita's case where the presence of a foetal heartbeat is cited as a cause for inaction.

Tell me: is it the law's constraint or confusion over what is permissible that applied in this particular circumstance?

I mean, foetal heartbeat or no is a clearly defined clinical event. You are either restrained by the presence of a foetal heartbeat or you are not. It's not hard to write a guideline to cover it. And not hard to implement that guideline.

Are you beginning to see what lies beneath?

In Savitas case, they didn't seem to confused about when an abortion is available.

Her life wasn't at risk at the time it was established she was miscarrying. The staff then monitored the fetal heartbeat in case it should stop, at which point there would be no legal restraint to an abortion.

Unfortunately, sepsis set in and we all know how that turned out.

Doctors clearly felt an abortion was necessary early on but Savita didn't meet the legal requirement of "risk to life". The legal grounds that is a direct result of the 8th.

antiskeptic · 24-05-2018 09:13PM

Thanks for the chance to trash it out Delirium, but I'm done here now

Auntie

Overheal · 24-05-2018 09:54PM

Praise Jesus

Delirium · 25-05-2018 07:39AM

MOD NOTE

Polls are open, so locking the thread until the results are out.

Delirium · 27-05-2018 02:16PM

MOD NOTE

Thread re-opened

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-05-2018 02:51PM

Well the results are in and it's a certainty that Christians can and indeed have voted for abortion.

Galwayguy35 · 27-05-2018 03:36PM

I voted for Repeal because it was the right thing to do, the priest wasn't too happy with the result last night but I'll always do what my own conscience tell me is best.

Cabaal · 27-05-2018 04:09PM

The very fact there was no urban/rural divide and with the exception of one county in the country its certainly clearly evident that a Christian can and will vote for the repeal of the 8th and for the proposed legislation, it really settles this question once and for all.

The very fact that this ref even had a higher yes outcome then marriage equality ref says so much about just how much the people of Ireland felt it had to change.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 04:37PM

Cabaal wrote: »

The very fact there was no urban/rural divide and with the exception of one county in the country its certainly clearly evident that a Christian can and will vote for the repeal of the 8th and for the proposed legislation, it really settles this question once and for all.

It's a little bit more nuanced than that.

If the problems you have with the 8th exceeded the problems you have with the legislation, then you vote yes.

A vote yes can't be taken as a support for the legislation. Indeed, the ballot paper itself dealt with rejecting the 8th and allowing the government to legislate.

The only indication we have (to my knowledge) is the RTE exit poll. Since it was bang on for the vote, it might be instructive re: peoples view of the proposed legislation.

72% for legislation for hard cases

52% support for abortion on request.

The OP enquires into "unlimited" abortion. Unless you suppose half the country Christian, you're no further along in your contention.

Achasanai · 27-05-2018 04:44PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The only indication we have (to my knowledge) is the RTE exit poll. .

No, the only real indication we have is the election result. Coupled with the proposed legislation which the No side assured us would be waiting for us depending on how we voted.

Love how this is being reversed now by some.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 05:00PM

Achasanai wrote: »

No, the only real indication we have is the election result.

Unfortunately, that says nothing concrete about support for each element of the proposed legislation.

You can guess all you like, but your guessing is tied up with a voters rejection of something that has nothing to do with the proposed legislation (namely the 8th). The only firm indication (of any kind) we have of voters views on abortion on request, is a 50/50 split from yhe RTE exit poll. It's a pretty good indication if you need one.

There is no turning here. Them's the objective reality's.

Be happy with your win. Be happy with whatever legislation comes about. No need to try scrape marrow out that you simply cannot access.

BenEadir · 27-05-2018 07:53PM

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.

Apparently christians in their droves voted for "unlimited abortion" (as you put it) or two thirds of voters in the referendum are neither christian or monotheist of any sort.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 08:11PM

BenEadir wrote: »

Apparently christians in their droves voted for "unlimited abortion" (as you put it) or two thirds of voters in the referendum are neither christian or monotheist of any sort.

You ought to read the post directly above yours for a more accurate interpretation of what one can and can't deduce.

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-05-2018 08:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You ought to read the post directly above yours for a more accurate interpretation of what one can and can't deduce.

We can certainly deduce that several hundred thousand Christians voted yes for abortion. If you disagree with this then I would be interested in what number of yes voters you believe were Christians and also how you cane to that number?

27-05-2018 08:19PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We can certainly deduce that several hundred thousand Christians voted yes for abortion. If you disagree with this then I would be interested in what number of yes voters you believe were Christians and also how you cane to that number?

Think we got that answer earlier as in there were none of no real Christian will/would vote for repeal, I'd like to see the revised answer if it comes.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 08:25PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

We can certainly deduce that several hundred thousand Christians voted yes for abortion.

I couldn't comment on numbers (since what constitutes a 'Christian' in the sense of God considering them thus, can't be known).

That said, I wouldn't doubt that some (or even very many) did vote for abortion.

I know of some (who I think are Christians) personally who did vote so. I myself would have (I suspect), if the choice had been for the difficult cases alone.

Whether any voted specifically for abortion on request (and not just because it was part and parcel of accessing a level of abortion they felt they had to vote for) I can't say.

And neither I think, can you.

Turtwig · 27-05-2018 08:33PM

The exit poll for RTE shows that between somewhere between 50% to 70% of the respondents agree with abortion on request up to 12 weeks. It does not seem unreasonable infer that some of them self identify as Catholic.

Timberrrrrrrr · 27-05-2018 08:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I couldn't comment on numbers (since what constitutes a 'Christian' in the sense of God considering them thus, can't be known).

That said, I wouldn't doubt that some (or even very many) did vote for abortion.

I know of some (who I think are Christians) personally who did vote so. I myself would have (I suspect), if the choice had been for the difficult cases alone.

Whether any voted for specifically for abortion on request (and not because it was part and parcel of a level of abortion they felt they had to vote for) I can't say.

And neither I think, can you.

That's correct I can't, but I think ops answer has been answered by the result of the referendum, Christians can, will and indeed have voted for abortion .

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 09:06PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That's correct I can't, but I think ops answer has been answered by the result of the referendum, Christians can, will and indeed have voted for abortion .

The OP is bit confusing. It asks about unlimited abortion. And also talks of abortion permitted to save the life of the mother being permissible.

He seems to mean anything outside saving life is unlimited. Which strikes me as a unusual word to use?

But wrt the OP, I'd agree that Christians can and did vote for "unlimited" abortion if only because they felt some liberalisation was a necessity.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 09:15PM

Turtwig wrote: »

The exit poll for RTE shows that between somewhere between 50% to 70% of the respondents agree with abortion on request up to 12 weeks. It does not seem unreasonable infer that some of them self identify as Catholic.

Leaving aside the issue of whether a Catholic is necessarily a Christian (which renders the question less than straightfoward - but hey! welcome to the Christianity forum)

RTE exit poll says that only 52% support abortion on request up to 12 weeks. Where did you figure up to 70%

BenEadir · 27-05-2018 09:20PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

That's correct I can't, but I think ops answer has been answered by the result of the referendum, Christians can, will and indeed have voted for abortion .

If all christian (and most most of the other monotheistic religions) state that abortion is against their religion and we have a landslide of voters in favour of repealing the 8th its pretty clear that most people claiming to be religious are in fact quite a la carte i.e. they voted for divorce, same sex marriage and now abortion yet derive some sort of comfort from publicly wearing the badge of their religion despite not upholding some of it's most basic tenets.

BenEadir · 27-05-2018 09:25PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of whether a Catholic is necessarily a Christian (which renders the question less than straightfoward - but hey! welcome to the Christianity forum)

RTE exit poll says that only 52% support abortion on request up to 12 weeks. Where did you figure up to 70%

This exit poll info on the RTE website states that the most important issue to voters (62%) was that women should have the right to choose if they wanted an abortion and only 36% were influenced by the right to life of the unborn.

"73% were in favour of making abortion available in cases of rape or incest; 71% in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, 67% between 12 and 24 weeks gestation where there was a risk to the health of the woman; but only 52% were in favour of abortion being available on request up to 12 weeks."

So there was a range of reasons why people voted yes but in each case a majority favours "yes" including on request up to 12 weeks.

Our politicians now have a mandate from a majority of voters to implement their proposed legislation, including abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 09:46PM

BenEadir wrote: »

This exit poll info on the RTE website states that the most important issue to voters (62%) was that women should have the right to choose if they wanted an abortion and only 36% were influenced by the right to life of the unborn.

"73% were in favour of making abortion available in cases of rape or incest; 71% in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, 67% between 12 and 24 weeks gestation where there was a risk to the health of the woman; but only 52% were in favour of abortion being available on request up to 12 weeks."

So there was a range of reasons why people voted yes but in each case a majority favours "yes" including on request up to 12 weeks.

Our politicians now have a mandate from a majority of voters to implement their proposed legislation, including abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

When it says only 52% in favour of abortion on request up to 12 weeks you have a clear cut statement on a specific, recognisable segment of the legislation.

When you have 62% citing a womans right to choose as an 'important factor' you have a vaguer statement. Someone can think it very important that a woman have the right to choose and also hold it important that there be constraints on that choice.

You can't have 52% and 62% voting for abortion on request up to 12 weeks. So the vague drops out.

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 09:48PM

BenEadir wrote: »

If all christian (and most most of the other monotheistic religions) state that abortion is against their religion and we have a landslide of voters in favour of repealing the 8th its pretty clear that most people claiming to be religious are in fact quite a la carte i.e. they voted for divorce, same sex marriage and now abortion yet derive some sort of comfort from publicly wearing the badge of their religion despite not upholding some of it's most basic tenets.

From whence the term 'cultural Christianity'

BenEadir · 27-05-2018 10:14PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

When it says only 52% in favour of abortion on request up to 12 weeks you have a clear cut statement on a specific, recognisable segment of the legislation.

Which means 48% wanted something different.

Some of that 48% may have been against abortion in all cases, some in favour of abortion on request up to 6/8/10 weeks and some may have been in favour of abortion on request up to 14/16/18/20/22/24 weeks. How will we ever know?

Perhaps if the govt had proposed to allow abortion on request up to 16 weeks the referendum would have been defeated or it may have been carried by an even bigger margin depending on how the 48% would have changed their vote. Who knows?

What we actually know is that in advance of the referendum the govt proposed to legislate for abortion on request up to 12 weeks if the 8th was repealed and having taken that into consideration 66% of people voted for repeal.

TD's who oppose the proposed legislation permitting abortion on request up to 12 weeks will be alienating at least 54% of their local electorate. Let's see how many sitting TD's who wish to return to the Dail after the next general election choose that path!!

antiskeptic · 27-05-2018 10:28PM

Its understandable that Yes are enjoying the relief (and to some extent triumph) that comes with a Yes vote. Its understandable too that prominent No-ers are silent - not wanting to be seen to stand in "The way of the people".

Nevertheless, when you take margin of error applied to slightly overshooting RTE exit poll, you're left with an inconvenient truth. The country split down the middle on the chief stumbling block : abortion on request up to 12 weeks

What do Christians make of this? It seems many were prepared for some liberalization. What do you make of half the country sharing you "moral". Reason for hope?

BenEadir · 27-05-2018 11:27PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nevertheless, when you take margin of error applied to slightly overshooting RTE exit poll, you're left with an inconvenient truth.

So the margin of error in an exit poll was 1.6%.

That could have meant 50.4% were in favour of abortion on request up to 12 weeks or that 53.6% were in favour. Both are majority decisions.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What do Christians make of this? It seems many were prepared for some liberalization. What do you make of half the country sharing you "moral".

In the most recent census 78.3% of the population declared themselves as catholic yet 66% of voters in the referendum voted to repeal the 8th knowing the govt proposed to introduce legislation permitting abortion on request up to 12 weeks.

Not only have self declared christians voted for abortion on request in their droves but it seems clear that a huge number of "catholics" talk the talk in public but (thankfully) don't walk the walk in the privacy of the voting booth.

The veneer of being a catholic is losing its shine at an accelerating pace.

Morbert · 28-05-2018 09:26AM

I don't expect the pro-life side to stop resisting abortion legislation, but it's important to accept the broad lessons of this referendum.

The threat of violence and social stigmatisation against women who are thinking of having abortions is not acceptable.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments