A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Min

sensibleken wrote: »

Min, BrenIreland. I wasn't going to vote labour but you have convinced me. Thats for being so concise in your parties beliefs

...and there was some who said they would not vote on single issues.

sensibleken

Min wrote: »

If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

Min this is just plain wrong. Polygamy has been the norm in europe, the east and africa for the majority of mankinds history. Famous christian polygamists include Charlemagne, Brian Boru etc. This has only in the last few hundred years been defined as marriage between one man and one woman.

Definitions change over time. Get used to it

Brenireland

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

My main probelm is with your accusation that labour are murders bren!

You waffled about the church having moral standing, in this thread otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

I am going to ask you a question you so far refuse to answer for me.
So I will ask it again and if you can just reply yes or no please!

I am pro choice, I support abortion. Am I a murderer?




Huh what?
bren first you post some quote about getting stoned, then you seem to have got stoned!

Im not sure what the above passage actually means!

I actually Answered your question some post's back,but your head seems to have been in the clouds,but here I will answer it again:

If you are a supporter And vote Yes to allow Abortion/& Euthanasia your are voting Yes to the act of "murder".

I would say that those who participate in the Act of stopping the Hearth of an other human with the use of a tablet or whatever are indeed Murderers,so Yes.

Which post did I mention which mentioned getting "stoned"?.

Min

oceanclub wrote: »

Do you think the 14 year old in the X case should be jailed for murder?

If yes, then you're unbelieveably cruel but at least consistent.

If no, then you're pro-choice to a certain extent, and then in your own definition, "pro-abortion".

P.

She went to England as it would be murder in the Irish state.

No doctor would have carried it out as they would be charged too.

The law says that 'yes' they should be charged with murder if it happened on Irish soil.
We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.

28064212

Min wrote: »

No one is saying about going back to the past.

Just a return to conservatism? Homosexuality is incompatible with Catholicism, will you vote to outlaw it in a referendum?

Min wrote: »

I think you will find Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women unlike some countries where abortion is available on demand.
Go and see for yourself, maybe caring for both mother and baby has led to higher standards than countries where they see the unborn as disposable.

I think you'll find that our low maternal death rate is questionable. And the majority of medical advances happen outside this country. You might have a case if we were world leaders in developing new techniques to save the mother, but we're not

Brenireland wrote: »

No,I am not saying this is murder,Long before of "Abortion" came about many mothers passed away for many natural reasons while giving birth,this was not murder,this was death while in child birth & is indeed very sad,however the light at the end of the tunnel was the Newborn,who's life & Voice was born to the world.

And lots of children died of natural reasons that we can now prevent. Is it not murder if we don't treat them?

Brenireland wrote: »

Any mother in the world would put their Child 1st if they had to & rightly so.

No they wouldn't. Many would be upset, but would be aware that they could go on to have another child born to a happy home, not leave a newborn motherless

Let's just be crystal clear here. You are talking about murdering (by your definition) the mother to save the baby.

Min wrote: »

They are not identical, that is why labour wants a referendum, same financial and other rights as a married couple but it is not marriage, the current constitution does not allow same sex marriage.

If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

They do not get the same rights. They get a fraction of the rights. You seem to think the definition of marriage by the state changes the definition of marriage in the church. It does not

Min

sensibleken wrote: »

Min this is just plain wrong. Polygamy has been the norm in europe, the east and africa for the majority of mankinds history. Famous christian polygamists include Charlemagne, Brian Boru etc. This has only in the last few hundred years been defined as marriage between one man and one woman.

Definitions change over time. Get used to it

Definitions of every word do not change all the time.

Zubeneschamali

Min wrote: »

Technically murder, since there is no legislation to allow it.

That's not the way legislation works.

It's not illegal to pull funny faces. That's not because the Dail passed a "Funny Faces Are OK" act, it's because nobody passed an act forbidding them.

The only law on our books which bans abortion is the 1861 "Offences against the Person" act, and it's unconstitutional.

We have no valid law against abortion on the books, so it's legal.

28064212

Min wrote: »

She went to England as it would be murder in the Irish state.

No doctor would have carried it out as they would be charged too.

The law says that 'yes' they should be charged with murder if it happened on Irish soil.
We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.

Charged with murder? Yes. Convicted of murder? No, most definitely not

Nodin

Min wrote: »

They are not identical, that is why labour wants a referendum, same financial and other rights as a married couple but it is not marriage, the current constitution does not allow same sex marriage.

If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

Marriage wasn't even a sacrament until the middle ages or so, and has been, at various times and various places, a 'union' between one man and a number of women, one woman and a number of men, two women or two men (China, Greece and Rome).

sensibleken

Min wrote: »

Definitions of every word do not change all the time.

But definition of marriage does. your trying to say that your idea of marriage is what it has always been. it isnt, not even close.

oceanclub

Min wrote: »

She went to England as it would be murder in the Irish state.

No doctor would have carried it out as they would be charged too.

The law says that 'yes' they should be charged with murder if it happened on Irish soil.
We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.

Ah, so you're OK with women murdering their babies as long as it doesn't happen here?

That makes you a complete hypocrite.

P.

Min

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's not the way legislation works.

It's not illegal to pull funny faces. That's not because the Dail passed a "Funny Faces Are OK" act, it's because nobody passed an act forbidding them.

The only law on our books which bans abortion is the 1861 "Offences against the Person" act, and it's unconstitutional.

We have no valid law against abortion on the books, so it's legal.

The constitution upholds the right to life to both the mother and the unborn.

It is not legislated for what the Supreme court allowed so the right to life of the unborn in the constitution which is legislated for comes above what the Supreme court allowed.

Zubeneschamali

Min wrote: »

It is not legislated for what the Supreme court allowed so the right to life of the unborn in the constitution which is legislated for comes above what the Supreme court allowed.

Don't give up the day job for Law.

caseyann

I wonder would they tax women for that aswell?

Brenireland

28064212 wrote: »

Just a return to conservatism? Homosexuality is incompatible with Catholicism, will you vote to outlaw it in a referendum?


I think you'll find that our low maternal death rate is questionable. And the majority of medical advances happen outside this country. You might have a case if we were world leaders in developing new techniques to save the mother, but we're not


And lots of children died of natural reasons that we can now prevent. Is it not murder if we don't treat them?


No they wouldn't. Many would be upset, but would be aware that they could go on to have another child born to a happy home, not leave a newborn motherless

Let's just be crystal clear here. You are talking about murdering (by your definition) the mother to save the baby.


They do not get the same rights. They get a fraction of the rights. You seem to think the definition of marriage by the state changes the definition of marriage in the church. It does not

To the first question you put to Min,I would say Yes to this.

& Yes lots of children did in fact die in the past under natural circumstances,but by your reckoning their would be no need for abortion as according to yourself we can now prevent it?

Min

oceanclub wrote: »

Ah, so you're OK with women murdering their babies as long as it doesn't happen here?

That makes you a complete hypocrite.

P.

I did not say that, I am looking at this from a legal perspective.

It would be murder if a doctor performed an abortion in Ireland. I have no problem with that, it is my view that all life should be respected and I view abortion as taking away a life which is what it is. To take a life with intention is...murder.

However we have legalised murder like executions and abortion elsewhere.

Min

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Don't give up the day job for Law.

Don't give up yours, you do not understand the constitution, what is legislated for under the constitution come first before what is not legislated for under the constitution.

If a doctor performed an abortion today if a woman was suicidal, it would not be legislated for.
Protecting the same unborn is what the constitution says is legal and it is legislated for.

The conflict would favour what is legislated for.

TrollHammaren

Min wrote: »

We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.

Do you actually believe that, or are you throwing about rhetoric to solidify your point? Assuming the former is true, then you're wrong, as it would set a president for legalised abortion where there is a threat to the mother, not legalised murder where some guy píssed in my cornflakes.

Brenireland wrote: »

why do these people have/or decide to have children if their health does not allow for it?,why don't people considering having a child look for advice from the Health Authorities before they decide,rather than have a child & then seek advice.

No matter what,the life of the unborn,who have no say on the matter,they should be number one priority in such unfortunate situations.

Woooooow. Is no one else shocked by this comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
How dare those women not foresee such pregnancy complications.

28064212

Brenireland wrote: »

To the first question you put to Min,I would say Yes to this.

Outlawing homosexuality? So we're going to return to a theocracy. Why have a government at all so? We'll just do what the Bible tells us. Pity, I really liked shellfish

Brenireland wrote: »

& Yes lots of children did in fact die in the past under natural circumstances,but by your reckoning their would be no need for abortion as according to yourself we can now prevent it?

In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder

Min wrote: »

I did not say that, I am looking at this from a legal perspective.

It would be murder if a doctor performed an abortion in Ireland. I have no problem with that, it is my view that all life should be respected and I view abortion as taking away a life which is what it is. To take a life with intention is...murder.

Again, wrong. He would be charged with murder. In court, it would be raised that such a charge is unconstitutional. He would be found not guilty, and the judge would rule that the legislation must be changed as it is unconstitutional. Although I won't be holding my breath, since it's been 19 years and counting (even though they managed to push the blasphemy bill through in a week when they found out about that)

Brenireland

TrollHammaren wrote: »

Do you actually believe that, or are you throwing about rhetoric to solidify your point? Assuming the former is true, then you're wrong, as it would set a president for legalised abortion where there is a threat to the mother, not legalised murder where some guy píssed in my cornflakes.




Woooooow. Is no one else shocked by this comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
How dare those women not foresee such pregnancy complications.

woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

cassi

Min and BrenIreland, can I ask you guys a honest question since were on the subject?

How exactly does it effect YOU, if a woman has an abortion? How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

Im not trying to get at you personally, Im just interested in hearing why people are so anti abortion and anti same sex marriage when, as I see it, it should really effect them at all!!

28064212

Brenireland wrote: »

woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

Actually, you're arguing that the woman should be "murdered" so that her unborn child should be kept alive. Incidentally, what about cases where both the mother and child are going to die unless the foetus is aborted?

TrollHammaren

Brenireland wrote: »

woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

No, Bren, you argued that women who require abortions to save their lives are irresponsible for not ensuring they are healthy enough to become pregnant. This is the first time a post on boards has ever angered me, but your comment was offensive and ignorant towards thousands of women who suffer from unforeseeable pregnancy complications.

RobbieTheRobber

Brenireland wrote: »

woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

You are not simply arguing that you are against abortion, you have called people who are pro choice, murderers bren.

Now for me calling someone a murderer is a quite a leap from arguing against something being legislated for!

oceanclub

Brenireland wrote: »

woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.

Can you verify that you do indeed put the right of the unborn above the right of the mother when there is a conflict between those two rights?

P.

bleg

Min wrote: »

If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

Nope, different cultures and civilizations have had different views on marriage. There are even Christian groups that practice polygamy.

Zubeneschamali

28064212 wrote: »

He would be charged with murder.

No, under the Offences against the Person act, he would be charged with:

58. Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.

An entirely different crime, with a different definition and punishment to murder.

Then he'd appeal, pointing out that that law does not give "due regard to the equal right to life of the mother", and his conviction would be thrown out, as the law is unconstitutional.

We've known this since 1992.

28064212

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, under the Offences against the Person act, he would be charged with:

58. Administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion.

Yep, my bad

Brenireland

28064212 wrote: »

Outlawing homosexuality? So we're going to return to a theocracy. Why have a government at all so? We'll just do what the Bible tells us. Pity, I really liked shellfish


In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder


Again, wrong. He would be charged with murder. In court, it would be raised that such a charge is unconstitutional. He would be found not guilty, and the judge would rule that the legislation must be changed as it is unconstitutional. Although I won't be holding my breath, since it's been 19 years and counting (even though they managed to push the blasphemy bill through in a week when they found out about that)

Exactly,Well if we had a non-corrupt government/World wouldn't we be sorted?:),sadly corruption and rot has set into world governments and now ours & so have quite a-lot of "rights".

"In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder"

But your confused,on one hand you are saying a child can now be saved as we have the ability to prevent natural deaths?

so why can a perfectly healthy unborn Child die to save the mother,If as according to you,we have the ability to prevent such a thing from happening.

Anyhow I gotta go,before I do my argument & what I am saying,is I am against Abortion,And as Labour are in favour of making it legal I will vote no to them.

TrollHammaren

Min wrote: »

one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

No one is looking to change the meaning of the word "marriage", a referendum would be called for an interpretation of the word "marriage" that allows for same-sex couples to be recognised by the state.

The Catholic Church could still choose not to marry two men or two women in their church, just like they could choose not to marry an excommunicated man and woman.

28064212

Brenireland wrote: »

Exactly,Well if we had a non-corrupt government/World wouldn't we be sorted?:),sadly corruption and rot has set into world governments and now ours & so have quite a-lot of "rights".

What does that have to do with anything I said? I asked if you were for a return to a theocracy.

Brenireland wrote: »

so why can a perfectly healthy unborn Child die to save the mother,If as according to you,we have the ability to prevent such a thing from happening.

That's not what I said at all. We do not have the ability to prevent a pregnancy threatening the life of the mother

Once again, are you arguing that the woman should be "murdered" so that her unborn child should be kept alive? And incidentally, what about cases where both the mother and child are going to die unless the foetus is aborted?

oceanclub

Brenireland wrote: »

.

Anyhow I gotta go,before I do my argument & what I am saying,is I am against Abortion,And as Labour are in favour of making it legal I will vote no to them.

Of course you have to run off before telling us whether or not you would forcibly sacrifice a woman's life to save a foetus. What a coincidence you have to leave.

P.

Brenireland

oceanclub wrote: »

Can you verify that you do indeed put the right of the unborn above the right of the mother when there is a conflict between those two rights?

P.

Look to be honest,I am Pro-Life and I just find it sad,that someone has to die,& I understand for many it is a hard subject,I am sorry If what my post said was that a mother should suffer to save the child,I shouldn't really comment on any of this to be honest because I am not Qualified nor do I know enough so sorry if what was said has angered some.

TrollHammaren

Brenireland wrote: »

Exactly,Well if we had a non-corrupt government/World wouldn't we be sorted?:),sadly corruption and rot has set into world governments and now ours & so have quite a-lot of "rights".

What do you mean, "wouldn't we be sorted"? I'm perfectly happy that two people can engage in a sexual practice, regardless of whether an unrelated body (the church) dicates whether or not it's evil.

"In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder"

But your confused,on one hand you are saying a child can now be saved as we have the ability to prevent natural deaths?

No, you're confused; read his/her post again.

so why can a perfectly healthy unborn Child die to save the mother,If as according to you,we have the ability to prevent such a thing from happening.

The child doesn't "have to die", but at least it allows for the mother to make an informed decision that isn't influenced by conservative restrictions.

Anyhow I gotta go,before I do my argument & what I am saying,is I am against Abortion,And as Labour are in favour of making it legal I will vote no to them.

No, you're arguing that people who vote for abortion in the case of threat to the mother's life are murderers.

.

oceanclub

Brenireland wrote: »

Look to be honest,I am Pro-Life and I just find it sad,that someone has to die

I presume your inability to give a straight answer means that you think the "someone" is the mother. It's a simple yes/no answer.

P.

TrollHammaren

Brenireland wrote: »

Look to be honest,I am Pro-Life and I just find it sad,that someone has to die,& I understand for many it is a hard subject,I am sorry If what my post said was that a mother should suffer to save the child,I shouldn't really comment on any of this to be honest because I am not Qualified nor do I know enough so sorry if what was said has angered some.

That's fair enough.

Brenireland

oceanclub wrote: »

Of course you have to run off before telling us whether or not you would forcibly sacrifice a woman's life to save a foetus. What a coincidence you have to leave.

P.

sorry if it seemed a coincidence,I genuinely had to go but I stuck around.
Look forcibly is a wrong word,My argument is that I am pro-Life,and I will not go any further,so I will not answer because I cannot,as I have not got the qualification.

I was just giving my view,and sorry if it angered you.

gandalf

I am not getting involved in all the squabbling and am addressing the article this thread is based on. I find that the so-called religious people in this country are the ones who are the most unchristian like. If you want to be religious take care of you and your own first and if there is merit in your beliefs others will gravitate towards them. Do not impose your values on everyone else because life is not black and white it is various shades of grey.

If I was truly cynical I could say that some of those aborted unwanted children were saved a life of abuse at the hands of the Catholic Clergy because it happened before. I am not cynical and recognise that those who carried out those acts were in the extreme minority but they were aided by the organisation of the church who either deliberately or through incompetence masked their existence and allowed them continue their disgusting behaviour. Why should an organisation that facilitated this abuse of children have any moral input into the political and legal structures of this country any longer.

If you want to be a good Catholic be one and bring your family up in their traditions, if you want to be a good Muslim then be one and bring your family up their traditions but do not expect to dictate to the whole of society because some of your values do not match up to everyone elses. The time has long passed for Church and State to be separated totally. Abortion is a difficult question and it is not one that has a simple answer. I find the idea that a potential Mother Theresa or Einstein may not be brought into this world extremely distressing but I also recognise that if a mothers life is in danger or the pregnancy has occurred because of rape or incest that woman should have a choice in this major crossroads in her life. People who rant on in an extreme fashion about abortion really do not appreciate the damage it causes to those who have had to make this decision and who have gone this path. By their very actions and words they are extremely unchristian.

I believe Labour are totally in the right want to look at the constitution and update it for the Ireland of today. It is based on thinking that is 5 or 6 generations ago. This country has changed totally in that time and the constitution should reflect that.

Sir Oxman

Well fook me, after reading the tripe spouted on this thread from the 'moral' brigade, there's another item that should be very high up the agenda for this election - seperation of church and state.

takun

Brenireland wrote: »

No,I am not saying this is murder,Long before of "Abortion" came about many mothers passed away for many natural reasons while giving birth,this was not murder,this was death while in child birth & is indeed very sad,however the light at the end of the tunnel was the Newborn,who's life & Voice was born to the world.

Any mother in the world would put their Child 1st if they had to & rightly so.

Sorry, but I can't just let this slide by and you can't get off the hook by saying

My argument is that I am pro-Life,and I will not go any further,so I will not answer because I cannot,as I have not got the qualification.

It's not good enough to take an absolutist stance, and then when challenged with the hard realities that arise as a consequence of that stance back away. If those realities are hard to face, surely that means you need to question your stance? At least a little?

It seems in the fist post quoted above as if, in some sort of bizarre contest between their various rights to life, you are saying that when a choice exists between mother and baby surviving, it's automatically the baby that wins the macabre competition.

Why? On what authority do you say that 'Any mother in the world' would chose this? How to you balance so easily one person's right against another, in total ignorance of the individual circumstance of each case?

I am a mother. If I found myself in the appalling situation where such a choice was required, I have no idea how I would even begin to make a decision, but it certainly would be influenced by many, many, many factors, including my other children and my own strong desire to live and the reality that there no automatically right or wrong answer at a time like that.

I have absolutely no idea know how I would choose, so how can you you with such terrible certainty know who I would put first?

oceanclub

Brenireland wrote: »

sorry if it seemed a coincidence,I genuinely had to go but I stuck around.
Look forcibly is a wrong word,My argument is that I am pro-Life,and I will not go any further,so I will not answer because I cannot,as I have not got the qualification.

I was just giving my view,and sorry if it angered you.

Sorry, you're waffling. Whose life has priority: the mother or the foetus?

P.

Brenireland

oceanclub wrote: »

I presume your inability to give a straight answer means that you think the "someone" is the mother. It's a simple yes/no answer.

P.

Like I said,I know I cannot give a simple YES/NO answer to such a question,I will not give an answer mainly because that is a decision and a very sad one,for someone to make/& to decide who should live,as a Christian I do not like to experience loss of life or the stopping of a heart,Not only Christians but many religions including atheists feel the same & rightly so.

Ok Takun,I understand & agree with you,sorry if it angered you.

28064212

Brenireland wrote: »

Like I said,I know I cannot give a simple YES/NO answer to such a question,I will not give an answer mainly because that is a decision and a very sad one,for someone to make/& to decide who should live,as a Christian I do not like to experience loss of life or the stopping of a heart,Not only Christians but many religions including atheists feel the same & rightly so.

And yet you think that someone who does have to make that decision should go to prison for it

Brenireland

28064212 wrote: »

And yet you think that someone who does have to make that decision should go to prison for it

look,hasn't that been law in this country for years?,It is not me who decides who goes to prison.

supergowl

Min wrote: »

The constitution upholds the right to life to both the mother and the unborn.

It is not legislated for what the Supreme court allowed so the right to life of the unborn in the constitution which is legislated for comes above what the Supreme court allowed.

Yeah. that may be a valid point. Except for one detail that every 'pro-life' group appears to conveniently forget; your 'unborn' in this context is not a human life. Every major empirical study on the subject has proven that the foetus, up to the maximum applicable limit for abortion (i.e. 24 weeks) does not meet the definitions and requirements (i.e. neurologically, histologically, functionally) of valid human life. Therefore, up til then, the decision to carry it further is up to only one human life, and that is the mother. Taken into consideration with the denigrative effects of abortion bans of women's rights (e.g. that they are disqualified from making the decision that will monumentally and irrevocably (and often ruinously) affect their lives) this is a non-argument. Realistically, and rationally, a healthy functional woman is of greater worth to society than one saddled with an unwanted pregnancy. It is frankly time we got real in this country, and stopped kowtowing to a mindless ethic to nebulous, baseless religious ideals (which should have no place in a 21st century state constitution). We should give women the full reproductive rights they are entitled to, and stop living in the Dark Ages. This David Quinn might be the best PR agent Labour have got!

(In case you were wondering, yes I am a woman, and yes, I have studied reproductive biology. I often consider leaving this country where my rights are so truncated. The choice for my having a child is and should be mine and mine alone. Every counter-argument is either baseless or purely hypothetical. To be blunt, there is no life on earth such a decision would **** up more than my own. The state should have no say in it, but it should have an obligation to provide adequate and safe facilities either way.)

Zubeneschamali

Brenireland wrote: »

look,hasn't that been law in this country for years?

No, not since 1992.

oceanclub

Brenireland wrote: »

Like I said,I know I cannot give a simple YES/NO answer to such a question,I will not give an answer mainly because that is a decision and a very sad one,for someone to make/& to decide who should live,as a Christian I do not like to experience loss of life or the stopping of a heart,Not only Christians but many religions including atheists feel the same & rightly so.

Ok Takun,I understand & agree with you,sorry if it angered you.

Well, we're all familar with how right-wing Christians handle the situation. Anyone who's read Emily O'Reilly's "Masterminds of the Right", no matter how long ago, will still remember the first chapter describing how a husband heard the screaming of his wife in pain from cancer because doctors refused to treat her because of her unborn child.

P.

28064212

Brenireland wrote: »

look,hasn't that been law in this country for years?,It is not me who decides who goes to prison.

But you won't vote for Labour because of it? Labour want to bring in legislation which will allow for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. This is already in the constitution. That's what you're voting against

the_syco

Brenireland wrote: »

why do these people have/or decide to have children if their health does not allow for it?,why don't people considering having a child look for advice from the Health Authorities before they decide,rather than have a child & then seek advice.

I believe you are trolling. I say this as it is incomprehensible that you think that women magically stay healthy during the 9 months or so just because they are carrying a child.

=-=

BTW, when is the decapitation of the church from the state going to happen? The old fashioned f**ks should be exiled to Rome, and the Pedo priests be decapitated.

Brenireland

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, not since 1992.

oh,okay,like I said my facts are all over the place!.

I mainly wanted to to say that I was against Labour for Abortion & now I realise other circumstances/Medical Circumstance's can change people situations that warrant it.

But once they are medical circumstances if you see my point.