Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

hinault

robdonn wrote: »

What word is misspelt?

Once again for the cheap seats.

Comprehension ain't your strong point.

looksee

Both are correct.

hinault

looksee wrote: »

Both are correct.

myshirt

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Over the course of 17 months, five women who were admitted to Mercy Health Partners Hospital in Muskegon, Michigan due to miscarriages, nearly died as doctors weren't allowed to induce a birth until either the foetal heartbeat stopped or the woman developed sepsis.

It is indeed a disgrace that no government has legislated correctly for the right to life as per the 8th. This is regardless of whatever side you are on.
The law should be clarified and not the X case legislated for, it was political cowardice, and frankly abhorrent in my view.

What I would say is to always keep in mind procedures absolutely and unequivocally nescessary to save the life of a woman, and procedures deliberately designed to end the life of an unborn child. There is a difference.

robdonn

hinault wrote: »

Once again for the cheap seats.

Comprehension ain't your strong point.

...

I don't want to be an ass and point out your error here.

galljga1

robdonn wrote: »

...

I don't want to be an ass and point out your error here.

Don't worry, I don't think anybody thinks you're the ass.

robdonn

galljga1 wrote: »

Don't worry, I don't think anybody thinks your the ass.

I think that since absolutely nothing has come from the manufactured case against PP, hinault's arguments have just lost all vigour.

Overheal

Some more insight into the US, brought to you by legend John Oliver and sloths.

cattolico

Cant say i am sorry to see LB gone. Glad electorate did not vote for a change in the constitution.

Kev W

cattolico wrote: »

Cant say i am sorry to see LB gone. Glad electorate did not for a change in the constitution.

Should that second sentence have more words in it?

robdonn

cattolico wrote: »

Cant say i am sorry to see LB gone. Glad electorate did not for a change in the constitution.

If that last sentence was supposed to imply that Labour losing seats is some sort of conservative statement by voters then you are sadly mistaken. AAA, Social Democrats, a good few independents and even Sinn Féin support abolishing the 8th.

PopePalpatine

cattolico wrote: »

Cant say i am sorry to see LB gone. Glad electorate did not vote for a change in the constitution.

Remind me, how are Renua, Paddy Manning, Kate Bopp etc. doing? :P

cattolico

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Remind me, how are Renua, Paddy Manning, Kate Bopp etc. doing? :P

How is Peadar Toibin doing? and Fianna Fail for that matter.

Delirium

cattolico wrote: »

How is Peadar Toibin doing? and Fianna Fail for that matter.

Open to correction, but saw it mentioned today that their (Fianna Fail) result was the second worst result they've ever had.

So I'm gonna go with bad to answer your question.

robdonn

Delirium wrote: »

Open to correction, but saw it mentioned today that their (Fianna Fail) result was the second worst result they've ever had.

So I'm gonna go with bad to answer your question.

They're currently on 42, second worst result (worst obviously being 2011 with 20). They got 44 and 57 in June and September respectively in 1927. Apart from that, they've never fallen below 65.

robdonn

Amnesty International/Red C poll reveals Irish public want expanded access to abortion to be a political priority for incoming government

5%* - Abortion illegal in all circumstances.

7% - When the woman's life is at risk (current legislation).

7% - When the woman's life is at risk and fatal foetal abnormality.

42% - When the woman's life is at risk, fatal foetal abnormality, woman's health is at risk and pregnancy is result of rape or incest.

38% - Access to abortion as they choose.


*Of the 5% opposed to abortion in all circumstances, 77% are not aware of the possible 14 year criminal penalty for women who have abortions.

Cabaal

Spotted this in it also

Role of religion

Contrary to what might have been assumed, people’s religion does not significantly impact on their views on abortion. In fact, 82% of those who consider themselves religious agreed that their religious views should not be imposed on others. Only one in five people (20%) who consider themselves to be religious say that they have “very conflicted” views on abortion because of their religion. Strikingly, 13% of those opposed to abortion in all circumstances shared this view. 28% of those who favour some expansion to abortion access agreed that they hide it because of their perception of how people who share their religion would feel about them.

Seems right, after all as a christian would you want Islamic or Jewish views imposed on your daily life?

solodeogloria

Good morning all,

The difference between abortion and other civil issues is that it is imposing death on the unborn child. It can be opposed on entirely secular grounds.

I agree with you that if by suggesting abortion should be outlawed in circumstances other than health intervention that I was imposing a matter of religious belief on someone that that wouldn't be conducive to freedom of religion.

The abortion issue however isn't a matter of religion. This is why I believe it probably should be discussed outside ife the Christianity forum. Yes, Christianity is opposed to abortion but it can be opposed on secular human rights grounds. That's why I don't think opposition is an imposition of Christian belief on society.

Much thanks in Christ Jesus,
solodeogloria

robdonn

Originally posted by Cabaal in the A&A forum

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/eight-amendment-abortion-rights-2685815-Mar2016/

The horrific court case involving a young pregnant brain-dead woman might not be a one-off
The last government legislated for an individual’s autonomy in medical cases – except if you’re a pregnant woman, writes barrister Kate Butler.

As former minister for health James O’Reilly noted, the AHD “has been recognised as an expression of an individual’s autonomy”.

That is, except if you’re a pregnant woman.

A woman can create an AHD that states her wishes to refuse treatment in certain situations, for example, if declared brain dead. However, under s.85(6)(b) of the new law, where a woman makes an AHD specifically setting out that she wishes to refuse treatment, even if she is pregnant, medical professionals are required to ignore those wishes.

So, let’s say you are a woman of child bearing age, perhaps with a serious illness, and you read about that case over Christmas 2014 and thought, ‘I don’t want my family and children to go through that horror show, I’m going to draw up an advance healthcare directive’.

And let’s say that in the AHD you specifically state that you wish to refuse treatment, even where you are pregnant and where the foetus is 20 weeks or less. If that scenario then arises, despite your clear instructions otherwise, life support will not be turned off: s.85(6)(b) kicks in and the medics must automatically refer the case to court.

Instead of providing that doctors may exercise their discretion in cases where the foetus has minimal chance of survival, the government – shackled by the Eighth Amendment – has required an automatic referral to court. Bizarrely, this is seen by policy makers as a vindication of the woman’s rights, because her will and preference will be taken into account by the court.

To give a foetus optimal chances of survival, it should be in utero for 32 weeks. In P.P. v HSE, this woman’s family were looking at a scenario of waiting potentially 17 weeks until they could lay their deceased loved one to rest.

The case in question was this http://www.thejournal.ie/life-support-clinically-dead-woman-judgement-1852228-Dec2014/

So not only can we ignore women's wishes when they are living, we as a country can completely ignore them if the women is dead as well.

Utterly sickening to put any family through such a thing if the person has specifically stated they do not wish to be kept on life support.

Arkady

Cabaal wrote: »

Spotted this in it also

Seems right, after all as a christian would you want Islamic or Jewish views imposed on your daily life?

Being pro the human right life is not restricted to religion. Or is it ?
Regardless if I was atheist or theist, I would be anti-abortion as there are two human live involved not one. I'm surprised (or maybe not) that some peoples hatred of others faith is so great, they endorse killing unborn kids just because they think they are spiting those with faith. There's a day of reckoning for it all.

Cabaal wrote: »

So not only can we ignore women's wishes when they are living, we as a country can completely ignore them if the women is dead as well.

Seems some are happy to afford greater rights to a dead body, just as long as they get to kill the unborn child (who could also be female).

robdonn

Arkady wrote: »

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that some peoples hatred of others faith is so great, they endorse killing unborn kids just because they think they are spiting those with faith. There's a day of reckoning for it all.

I'm surprised that a person could think that someone would support abortion on the sole grounds of an 'up yours' to a god they don't believe exists. You talk of hatred of others' faiths, yet you don't seem to have a problem imagining an atheist being so cold hearted.

Delirium

Arkady wrote: »

Being pro the human right life is not restricted to religion. Or is it ?
Regardless if I was atheist or theist, I would be anti-abortion as there are two human live involved not one. I'm surprised (or maybe not) that some peoples hatred of others faith is so great, they endorse killing unborn kids just because they think they are spiting those with faith. There's a day of reckoning for it all.

Seems some are happy to afford greater rights to a dead body, just as long as they get to kill the unborn child (who could also be female).

I'm surprised that you actually seem to believe that there are pro-choice people who are pro-choice purely to spite religious people. That's pretty high up on the stupid characterisations scale.

And denying the next of kin the ability to have a funeral for weeks or months because the foetus might develop enough to survive outside the womb seems pretty cruel. It also reduces women to incubators. Doesn't matter if they're alive or dead, they're carrying the foetus to term.

Arkady

Delirium wrote: »

I'm surprised that you actually seem to believe that there are pro-choice people who are pro-choice purely to spite religious people. That's pretty high up on the stupid characterisations scale.

Given that many in the pro abortion side spend their time ranting so much about religion, when it has nothing to do with religion but instead is about the two human lives involved.

What has religion got to do with any of it ? Do you have to have religion now to respect a human life ?

Delirium wrote: »

And denying the next of kin the ability to have a funeral for weeks or months because the foetus might develop enough to survive outside the womb seems pretty cruel. It also reduces women to incubators. Doesn't matter if they're alive or dead, they're carrying the foetus to term.

So better to respect a dead body, as long as you get to kill the living unborn child, you wouldn't want them to live now would you ?

robdonn

Arkady wrote: »

What has religion got to do with any of it ?

Agreed, now go tell all the religious groups and organisations to keep their nose out of it.

Arkady

robdonn wrote: »

Agreed, now go tell all the religious groups and organisations to keep their nose out of it.

Why, are they not citizens of this country as well with the same rights as non religious groups and organisations ? Does a persons faith/non belief preclude them from deciding on the equal right of human life ?

Many honest atheists who can see the wood for the trees, and examine the subject on it own merits, without religion, are as anti abortion as any religious person.

Tell us why to have respect for another's human life, you have to be religious and involve religion ?

robdonn

Arkady wrote: »

Why, are they not citizens of this country as well with the same rights as non religious groups and organisations ? Does a persons faith/non belief preclude them from deciding on the equal right of human life ?

Many honest atheists who can see the wood for the trees, and examine the subject on it own merits, without religion, are as anti abortion as any religious person.

Tell us why to have respect for another's human life, you have to be religious and involve religion ?

There are many non-religious people who are anti abortion and there are also many religious people who are pro choice.

Most who are pro choice simply value the life of the mother, including the quality of that life, over that of the unborn, not instead of it.

Delirium

Arkady wrote: »

Given that many in the pro abortion side spend their time ranting so much about religion, when it has nothing to do with religion but instead is about the two human lives involved.

That might be because a lot of vocal pro-life groups tend to be religious groups. So it's not surprising that some pro-choice people would rant about religion when there would be a perception that religious groups are imposing their religion on people of other ideologies.

What has religion got to do with any of it ? Do you have to have religion now to respect a human life ?

Not at all. Some religious people don't believe that a woman should be allowed an abortion under any cirucumstance, even if the woman dies as a result. So, no, religion is no guarantee of respect for human life.

So better to respect a dead body, as long as you get to kill the living unborn child, you wouldn't want them to live now would you ?

I'm not a doctor so it's very unlikely I'm going to be performing any abortions or turning off life support machines.

The problem with what you're posting is that you presume everyone that is pro-choice wants all pregnancies to end in abortion ("as long as you get to kill the living unborn child"). Which is just daft. Most pro-choice people appreciate that pregnancy is not just a case of all pregnancies are by choice, and that they go through to child-birth without problem.

For example, a woman might want an abortion so she can continue her cancer treatment.

Absolam

Delirium wrote: »

I'm surprised that you actually seem to believe that there are pro-choice people who are pro-choice purely to spite religious people. That's pretty high up on the stupid characterisations scale.

In fairness, there are those who have expressed the view that pro-life advocates are only pro life in the womb and are disinterested as soon as that life exits the womb.... stupid characterisations are as stupid characterisations does, to mangle a quote.

solodeogloria

Good morning all!

Pro-choice Christians probably do exist but I suspect that they are a minority on the liberal side of the spectrum. If my church came out in support of abortion I would have to leave it.

However we are talking about a secular matter of politics which is why I'm so bemused that it shows up in the Christianity forum. I've explained above why I oppose this for secular reasons but I would much much rather discuss my faith on this forum instead of hobby horse issues like abortion and gay marriage. I would hate for people to think Christianity was only about these things!

Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria

Absolam

You've said yourself that if your church came out in favour of abortion you'd have to leave it; your objection to your church's action wouldn't be a secular objection I'm thinking, so there's obviously a religious perspective on the subject in fairness.

That said, per the thread title, in Christian theology life is sacred. Various religious arguments have been presented through history to justify, even sanctify, the taking of human life. If there is a discussion to be had on the subject in this forum, I'd suggest it revolves around whether there is or is not a Christian justification for abortion in a given circumstance, rather than Christians being pressured into defending a Christian stance on abortion to non Christians.

Just my opinion, obviously