Pope Francis: Abortion is evil, It is a crime, an absolute evil

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Should is a matter of opinion. My opinion is a democratic republic derives it's authority from the people, so it's up to the people to decide what authority it should have, including what rights it asserts on their behalf.

Why are so many 'pro lifers' opposed to holding a referendum on the 8th then? Are they afraid of democracy?

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why are so many 'pro lifers' opposed to holding a referendum on the 8th then? Are they afraid of democracy?

Because whether you favour democracy or not, if you already have the right you want, there is no upside to creating an opportunity to lose it? You may imagine that 'pro lifers' must value the principles of democracy more than they value the lives of the unborn, but I don't see any evidence that that is, or even should be, the case.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

Because whether you favour democracy or not, if you already have the right you want, there is no upside to creating an opportunity to lose it? You may imagine that 'pro lifers' must value the principles of democracy more than they value the lives of the unborn, but I don't see any evidence that that is, or even should be, the case.

So in conclusion, as the current demographic of the population under 50 have never had a vote on this, and many Irish citizens want the 8th repealed, failing to hold a referendum and keeping the laws as they are, is both undemocratic and an infringement on the Human Rights of Irish women.

endacl

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So in conclusion, as the current demographic of the population under 50 have never had a vote on this, and many Irish citizens want the 8th repealed, failing to hold a referendum and keeping the laws as they are, is both undemocratic and an infringement on the Human Rights of Irish women.

Jebus Crisp. As I said in your other thread, would you not just go along to mass and be done with all the arguin'?!?

cattolico

o1s1n wrote: »

A clump of cells and a child are two totally different things.

Don't let that get in the way of your sensationalism though.

A clump cells? the effects of the Virus can only be seen when the child far past the clump of cells stage.

Kiwi in IE

cattolico wrote: »

A clump cells? the effects of the Virus can only be seen when the child far past the clump of cells stage.

Oh so now you admit there is a clump of cells stage? I thought it was person/baby/child from the moment of conception. Great now we are getting somewhere!

Nick Park

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why are so many 'pro lifers' opposed to holding a referendum on the 8th then? Are they afraid of democracy?

I don't think that argument holds water. Would you be happy if we had a Referendum that proposed to legalise slavery?

Most of us would oppose holding a Referendum for something we see as a violation of human rights. Democracy, when all is said and done, is not perfect. And people have shown themselves capable of voting or acting as a majority in ways which, in later years, we all recognise to be abhorrent.

I would, for example, oppose holding a Referendum to reintroduce capital punishment. Yet, given the wrong timing, such a Referendum could easily pass in a democratic society.

Kiwi in IE

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think that argument holds water. Would you be happy if we had a Referendum that proposed to legalise slavery?

Most of us would oppose holding a Referendum for something we see as a violation of human rights. Democracy, when all is said and done, is not perfect. And people have shown themselves capable of voting or acting as a majority in ways which, in later years, we all recognise to be abhorrent.

I would, for example, oppose holding a Referendum to reintroduce capital punishment. Yet, given the wrong timing, such a Referendum could easily pass in a democratic society.

Yet we have the international Human Rights convention telling Ireland that the current position on abortion is violating Human Rights and recommending a repeal of the 8th Amendment?

Kiwi in IE

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think that argument holds water. Would you be happy if we had a Referendum that proposed to legalise slavery?

Most of us would oppose holding a Referendum for something we see as a violation of human rights. Democracy, when all is said and done, is not perfect. And people have shown themselves capable of voting or acting as a majority in ways which, in later years, we all recognise to be abhorrent.

I would, for example, oppose holding a Referendum to reintroduce capital punishment. Yet, given the wrong timing, such a Referendum could easily pass in a democratic society.

I agree with the above of course, entitlement to basic human rights should not put to popular vote. Absolam has been arguing the opposite however, and the comment that you quoted was in response to that.

cattolico

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Why are so many 'pro lifers' opposed to holding a referendum on the 8th then? Are they afraid of democracy?

Should there be a referendum to bring back slavery or racial segregation? Can't you see why we don't think that humanity, what is innately human, should be put to a vote?

What democracies have done in history by Popular vote has not always been right. To say that a pregnant woman has the right to life is not wrong, is it?

hinault

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

No the majority of a single country do not get to decide what basic human rights are. There is an international convention which agrees what human rights are.

:rolleyes:

We have a Statist.

Kiwi in IE

cattolico wrote: »

Should there be a referendum to bring back slavery or racial segregation? Can't you see why we don't think that humanity, what is innately human, should be put to a vote?

What democracies have done in history by Popular vote has not always been right. To say that a pregnant woman has the right to life is not wrong, is it?

Go back and read the entire argument, I already explained that to Nick about 3 posts back. Popular vote was originally Absolams position, not my own. In no way do I think that basic human rights should be subject to popular vote and I've made that position quite clear right through the thread. Post was 'Devils advocate'.

Interestingly Equal marriage was put to popular vote, so voting on whether or not human rights should be upheld is not unheard of here.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

:rolleyes:

We have a Statist.

Aww hello Hinault. You DO read my posts! I knew it!

cattolico

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Go back and read the entire argument, I already explained that to Nick about 3 posts back. Popular vote was originally Absolams position, not my own. In no way do I think that basic human rights should be subject to popular vote and I've made that position quite clear right through the thread. Post was 'Devils advocate'.

Interestingly Equal marriage was put to popular vote, so voting on whether or not human rights should be upheld is not unheard of here.

Civil SS Marriage is a totally different kettle of Fish. Yes we could argue, but bottom line nobody died. What two men or two women do is up to them. That debate has nothing to do with abortion which is the taking of a life. That should not up for a referendum. Human live should not be the subject of what people think, otherwise we go back to saying that group X in society has no rights.

Kiwi in IE

cattolico wrote: »

Civil SS Marriage is a totally different kettle of Fish. Yes we could argue, but bottom line nobody died. What two men or two women do is up to them. That debate has nothing to do with abortion which is the taking of a life. That should not up for a referendum. Human live should not be the subject of what people think, otherwise we go back to saying that group X in society has no rights.

You will find that the UN Human Rights convention disagrees with your position.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So in conclusion, as the current demographic of the population under 50 have never had a vote on this, and many Irish citizens want the 8th repealed, failing to hold a referendum and keeping the laws as they are, is both undemocratic and an infringement on the Human Rights of Irish women.

I don't see how that's a conclusion to why 'pro lifers' wouldn't want a referendum on the 8th? Anyways, we haven't voted on most Constitutional provisions in the last 50 years, and neither have most of the other democracies with Constitutions. So there's patently nothing undemocratic about not constantly subjecting Constitutional elements to referenda; look at New Zealand, where there isn't even a requirement for a referendum to enact constitutional change, yet they're still considered democratic. Since there is no Human Right (even exclusive to Irish women) that obliges anyone to hold such a referendum (just like in New Zealand) it's impossible to infringe a right that doesn't exist. Finally 'many' is a pretty nebulous number; I have many friends, but not nearly enough to force a referendum on a subject of my choosing. If 'many' ever becomes 'enough' there'll be a referendum; that's democracy.

cattolico

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

You will find that the UN Human Rights convention disagrees with your position.

Nobody has the right to remove the dignity of the person. A person from conception to natural death.

Your human rights as a person should not be undefined by anyone, ever.

frostyjacks

The UN can criticise us all they like; they have to be seen to be doing something to justify their salaries. We are a sovereign people who have made our feelings crystal clear at the polls already, and we won't be strong-armed into legalising the killing of babies in the womb.

hinault

cattolico wrote: »

Nobody has the right to remove the dignity of the person. A person from conception to natural death.

Your human rights as a person should not be undefined by anyone, ever.

Statist's contend otherwise. Only when it's suits their personal bias, of course.

Totalitarianism, how are ye,

anothernight

Absolam wrote: »

I don't see how that's a conclusion to why 'pro lifers' wouldn't want a referendum on the 8th? Anyways, we haven't voted on most Constitutional provisions in the last 50 years, and neither have most of the other democracies with Constitutions.

I don't think a comparison on who's voting for what in which constitution is fair in this case, since many of the things Ireland required a vote for, could be done through simple legislation in some other countries. Case in point: same sex marriage. Ireland was the first to pass a referendum on it in Europe because it was the first country (within the list of European countries which had seriously considered the issue) to require a referendum in the first place. Norway, Belgium, Spain, etc., simply used legislative means to change the rules, as they just didn't mention the matter in their own constitutions.

Now there's a bunch of other countries considering changing their own constitutions to allow same sex marriage, mind you.

anothernight

frostyjacks wrote: »

The UN can criticise us all they like; they have to be seen to be doing something to justify their salaries. We are a sovereign people who have made our feelings crystal clear at the polls already, and we won't be strong-armed into legalising the killing of babies in the womb.

We?!

With all due respect, I don't see why you're extrapolating your opinion to the whole Irish population, when you're the guy who unapologetically thinks that a woman going back to someone's hotel room should expect to be raped, and that women are "equally responsible" for their rapes. Please don't include me in your personal opinion. It's offensive.

Absolam

hinault wrote: »

Statist's contend otherwise. Only when it's suits their personal bias, of course.
Totalitarianism, how are ye,

I don't think Kiwi is a Statist; in this case she would prefer States be dictated to by an another body. Perhaps a meta-Statist?

cattolico

frostyjacks wrote: »

The UN can criticise us all they like; they have to be seen to be doing something to justify their salaries. We are a sovereign people who have made our feelings crystal clear at the polls already, and we won't be strong-armed into legalising the killing of babies in the womb.

It does not matter what anyone says, human rights should not be subject to the whims or opinions of anyone.

hinault

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think Kiwi is a Statist; in this case she would prefer States be dictated to by an another body. Perhaps a meta-Statist?

meta-Statist? Perhaps.

The laughable part of this is that Statism is a hackneyed out of date concept.

Statism advocates for the removal of all personal freedoms.

Statists advocate the exact concept which they otherwise claim to oppose (here).
Go figure.:rolleyes:

Absolam

anothernight wrote: »

I don't think a comparison on who's voting for what in which constitution is fair in this case, since many of the things Ireland required a vote for, could be done through simple legislation in some other countries.

I didn't compare who votes for what, I pointed out that the frequency of refernda to change the law doesn't make a country any more or less democratic.

anothernight wrote: »

Case in point: same sex marriage. Ireland was the first to pass a referendum on it in Europe because it was the first country (within the list of European countries which had seriously considered the issue) to require a referendum in the first place. Norway, Belgium, Spain, etc., simply used legislative means to change the rules, as they just didn't mention the matter in their own constitutions.

And Ireland could have used legislation to make same sex marriage law; it simply would have been open to Constitutional challenge (with no guarantee the challenge would be successful), and also open to change by future governments. By having a referendum the decision to have and to change same sex marriage was placed in the hands of the people, just as the decision to have and to change abortion was.
There's no reasonable expectation that we'll return to the polls to discuss same sex marriage until it's evident that the majority of the electorate oppose it; the same is true for the ban on abortion, and every other Constitutional provision.

PopePalpatine

hinault wrote: »

meta-Statist? Perhaps.

The laughable part of this is that Statism is a hackneyed out of date concept.

Statism advocates for the removal of all personal freedoms.

Statists advocate the exact concept which they otherwise claim to oppose (here).
Go figure.:rolleyes:

Unless it's Franco-esque statism (I'm guessing you're conflating the term "statism" with "totalitarianism" and/or "authoritarianism"), then that's A-OK and given the RCC seal of approval.

haveringchick

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Life. Not health. The life the foetus is put before the health of the woman.

No its not.

looksee

Absolam wrote: »

Well, (as you'd expect) the theological position is more philosophical based on medical than medical, but it runs is like this;
1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.
2. The decision to use the term "fertilized ovum" to indicate the earliest phases of embryonic development can in no way lead to an artificial value distinction between different moments in the development of the same human individual.
3. It is clear, therefore, that the proven "anti-implantation" action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.
Moreover, it seems sufficiently clear that those who ask for or offer this pill are seeking the direct termination of a possible pregnancy already in progress, just as in the case of abortion.
4. Consequently, from the ethical standpoint the same absolute unlawfulness of abortifacient procedures also applies to distributing, prescribing and taking the morning-after pill. All who, whether sharing the intention or not, directly co-operate with this procedure are also morally responsible for it.

The short answer to your own point is yes it prevents a pregnancy developing, but the pregnancy has already begun, hence the equivalence with abortion. Once the ovum has implanted the morning after pill is ineffective in preventing the pregnancy from continuing; but as far as the Church is concerned pregnancy begins at conception (fertilisation) rather than implantation.

I'll see your Vatican document and raise you an NHS explanation:

Levonelle
Levonelle contains levonorgestrel, a synthetic version of the natural hormone progesterone. In a woman’s body, progesterone plays a role in ovulation and preparing the uterus for accepting a fertilised egg.
It’s not known exactly how Levonelle works, but it’s thought to work primarily by preventing or delaying ovulation. It does not interfere with your regular method of contraception.
ellaOne
ellaOne contains ulipristal acetate, which stops progesterone working normally. It prevents pregnancy mainly by preventing or delaying ovulation.`

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/emergency-contraception.aspx#How

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

I'll see your Vatican document and raise you an NHS explanation:

When did the NHS become a source for theological law?

looksee

1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly "anti-implantation" function. The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo

Are you suggesting that this is theological law?

Absolam

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that this is theological law?

Nope, that's part of a statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life of the Holy See explaining why the morning after pill is contrary to Canon Law 1398. Canon Law 1398 is theological law. The Holy See obviously being a primary source for theological law.
Anyway, I was asking; when did the NHS become a source for theological law?

MrPudding

looksee wrote: »

Are you suggesting that this is theological law?

No. I think he is suggesting, or confirming what many believe, that theological or canon law, has no basis in reason, evidence or reality.

MrP

MrPudding

haveringchick wrote: »

No its not.

Have you taken a blow to the head? Google Savita.

MrP

lazybones32

Savita died from sepsis; not because she didn't have an abortion. Had an abortion taken place and the same mistakes/oversights were made, the result would have been the same.

Sepsis kills a lot of people every year - in developed and developing Nations.

inocybe

And the women refused cancer treatment who had to travel abroad for an abortion.

Absolam

MrPudding wrote: »

No. I think he is suggesting, or confirming what many believe, that theological or canon law, has no basis in reason, evidence or reality.

I think the basis of Canon Law is divine law. Whether you think that has anything to do with reason, evidence, or reality is up to you; it's not at all relevant to the Church's position anyway.

haveringchick

MrPudding wrote: »

Have you taken a blow to the head? Google Savita.

MrP

Mrs Halappanavar died of sepsis. (I didn't know the poor lady, so I wouldn't refer to her by her first name).
The neglectful treatment she received at the hands of the doctors and nurses resulted in her death, not the fact that her baby wasn't aborted
It's all there in the official report.

PopePalpatine

lazybones32 wrote: »

Savita died from sepsis; not because she didn't have an abortion. Had an abortion taken place and the same mistakes/oversights were made, the result would have been the same.

Sepsis kills a lot of people every year - in developed and developing Nations.

The sepsis developed BECAUSE the doctors wouldn't remove the miscarried foetus, as it still had a heartbeat.

haveringchick

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The sepsis developed BECAUSE the doctors wouldn't remove the miscarried foetus, as it still had a heartbeat.

No, the sepsis developed because the hospital totally failed to follow basic standard procedures in care.

inocybe

haveringchick wrote: »

No, the sepsis developed because the hospital totally failed to follow basic standard procedures in care.

The standard procedure in other countries is an immediate abortion

lazybones32

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The sepsis developed BECAUSE the doctors wouldn't remove the miscarried foetus, as it still had a heartbeat.

The infection is most likely to have caused the miscarriage and this same infection cost her life. Had she been given antibiotics 21 hours earlier, she would most likely be alive today. This is in the report. (Unless the report was written by anti-abortion 'extremists'?)

Maternal sepsis is the leading cause of maternal death and incidences are increasing worldwide; even in the UK, where abortion is readily available. UHG have previously terminated pregnancies where complications have arisen because it is permissible in order to save the life of the woman.

lazybones32

inocybe wrote: »

The standard procedure in other countries is an immediate abortion

Doctors assessed her and found there was no immediate danger.
Read the Report.

volchitsa

lazybones32 wrote: »

The infection is most likely to have caused the miscarriage and this same infection cost her life. Had she been given antibiotics 21 hours earlier, she would most likely be alive today. This is in the report. (Unless the report was written by anti-abortion 'extremists'?)

No, the report absolutely does not say that she just needed more (or different, or earlier) antibiotic treatment, it says she needed diagnosis and suitable treatment. That is code for the standard internationally recognized treatment, which - as has been said above - is a termination of the pregnancy followed by antibiotics.

It's exactly the same principle as a septic wound caused by a splinter or other object : it's not enough just to give antibiotics, you must first clean out the wound, and then adminster antibiotics.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Maternal sepsis is the leading cause of maternal death and incidences are increasing worldwide; even in the UK, where abortion is readily available.

It is because maternal sepsis is so dangerous that it is criminal recklessness to have legislation which forbids termination unless the woman's life, as opposed to merely her health, is in danger.

lazybones32 wrote: »

UHG have previously terminated pregnancies where complications have arisen because it is permissible in order to save the life of the woman.

Before Nov 2012 and Savita's death? Evidence please.

haveringchick

lazybones32 wrote: »

Doctors assessed her and found there was no immediate danger.
Read the Report.

I think the report didn't suit the pro-choice agenda to the degree they had hoped it would, so the report is pretty much ignored for their purposes

Absolam

Rather than replay the entire discussion again, we could just read what happened the last time Volchitsa kicked off this rant, and move on....
Starts properly about Post #7988 and warning for those with a weak constitution, it doesn't stop until about #8036. It kicks off again at #9542 but nothing new got added.

haveringchick

Absolam wrote: »

Rather than replay the entire discussion again, we could just read what happened the last time Volchitsa kicked off this rant, and move on....
Starts properly about Post #7988 and warning for those with a weak constitution, it doesn't stop until about #8036. It kicks off again at #9542 but nothing new got added.

Terrifying stuff, revolted after even a few posts. I'm out.

volchitsa

haveringchick wrote: »

Terrifying stuff, revolted after even a few posts. I'm out.

Absolam appears to believe that "winning a discussion" is the same as "other posters deciding they have had enough of trying to discuss an actual subject with someone who prefers content-free nitpicking and a refusal to declare his views so as never to have said anything meaningful".

I suppose if it keeps Absolam happy to imagine so, then it's a result to that extent.

But it really doesn't change anything on this thread - far more relevant is the fact that the chairman investigating, Professor Arulkumaran, has said that if Savita had been his patient he would have given her an abortion when she requested it, and also that a significant factor in her death had been the interpretation of the legal situation available to staff at GUH's (which was all they had, remember, since there was no law to define it clearly at that time).

Nowhere in any of the three reports is it said that antibiotics alone would have given her a chance of survival, never mind naming an ideal timeframe for administering this lifesaving antibiotic treatment. Nowhere.

That's because antibiotics alone would not have been enough. She needed an abortion as well.

hinault

haveringchick wrote: »

No, the sepsis developed because the hospital totally failed to follow basic standard procedures in care.

Exactly.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Rather than replay the entire discussion again, we could just read what happened the last time Volchitsa kicked off this rant, and move on....
Starts properly about Post #7988 and warning for those with a weak constitution, it doesn't stop until about #8036. It kicks off again at #9542 but nothing new got added.

MOD NOTE

Please don't drag in discussions from other forums.

Thanks for your attention.

hinault

Delirium wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Please don't drag in discussions from other forums.

Thanks for your attention.

I disagree.

It's beneficial that we know said posters predilection for rabbit holes, before replying to said posts.