Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic

Im on the phone so will condense a reply. You could review your post in light of it?

The question posed was what would occur under present law since that is established under the 8th.

You speak of the patient in the process of dying before action can be taken. The act says to a)prevent a b)risk of death coming about. That moves the goalpost back a step from your contention that the person need actually be dying (as my last post explains).

I understand what your saying about risk to health. It apparently moves the goalposts back. However:

a) the current act isnt prescriptive as to were the existing goalposts ought be set.

b) It follows that once permitted to prioritize the life of the mother over the baby you are permitted to set thresholds. Once deciding that drink driving involves risk of death and deciding to prevent that risk zone being entered you set about setting thresholds. Tight or loose depending on what you deem necessary to avoid the risk coming about. It need not be an 'immediate or inevitable risk' - you just know that drink driving puts people in that risk zone. And threshold until you achieve sn acceptable result.

c) thresholding will be necessary under the new law. Otherwise doctors would be able to abort due to the threat to the health of the mothers skin (by way of stretch marks). Your faced with lawsuits for damage to health for want of an abortion on any grounds unless you threshold 'serious' and 'prevent' entry to that risk zone

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

seemingly a pro-life doctor today admitted the 8th was a factor in the death of Savita.

Anyone got any info on it?

Im not sure of the significance of this. Aside from the potential PR scoop

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Im not sure of the significance of this. Aside from the potential PR scoop

Medical professionals on both side of the aisle agreeing the 8th played a part in the death of Savita.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Im not sure of the significance of this. Aside from the potential PR scoop

It certainly puts another dent in your continued insistence that the 8th played no part in her death.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Timberrrrrrrr

....... wrote: »

Dent? Another gaping hole in a net.

I'm sure he will copy/paste his usual response and keep the blinkers firmly in place.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It certainly puts another dent in your continued insistence that the 8th played no part in her death.

As you can see from the nature of the discussion, I'm less concerned about what people say than I am in the validity of what they say.

If you've something to say about the validity of what is said, then by all means.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Medical professionals on both side of the aisle agreeing the 8th played a part in the death of Savita.

...makes for a great headline.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

As you can see from the nature of the discussion, I'm less concerned about what people say than I am in the validity of what they say.

If you've something to say about the validity of what is said, then by all means.

I do


You continually post lies as fact and when these lies of yours are shown for what they are you stick your fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA LA LA before going to your usual copy/paste lie/response about how the 8th didn't have anything to do with the death of Savitta.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I do


You continually post lies as fact and when these lies of yours are shown for what they are you stick your fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA LA LA before going to your usual copy/paste lie/response about how the 8th didn't have anything to do with the death of Savitta.

Shown? I've been told the 8th has killed numerous times. I've been told the Professor blamed the 8th (when he didn't). I've been told the 8th killed Savita (when the official report into her death doesn't even hint at such a thing). I've asked whether Savita could happen under the current 8th Amendment-enabled law and ...silence

Indeed, your comment is pretty typical of the kind of "shown" I've seen around boards. Delirium is making a stab at it at the moment. But other than that?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Macha

Sorry, antiskeptic but Dr Trevor Hayes with Doctors for Life admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that Savita should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. You can listen back if you wish.

I would laugh at your stubbornness except for the fact that as an Irish woman of child-bearing age, this is extremely serious and personal for me.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

Shown? I've been told the 8th has killed numerous times. I've been told the Professor blamed the 8th (when he didn't). I've been told the 8th killed Savita (when the official report into her death doesn't even hint at such a thing). I've asked whether Savita could happen under the current 8th Amendment-enabled law and ...silence

Indeed, your comment is pretty typical of the kind of "shown" I've seen around boards. Delirium is making a stab at it at the moment. But other than that?

Many medical practitioners have said her death was a result if the 8th, you just ignore anything they have said and continue to copy/paste about the above bolded.

They do say ignorance is bliss though.

antiskeptic

Macha wrote: »

Sorry, antiskeptic but Dr Trevor Hayes with Doctors for Life admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that Savita should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. You can listen back if you wish.

I did listen back. And I would urge anyone who believes for a moment that a doctor "on the No side" admits the 8th had a hand in Savita's death listen to it too.

He makes it plain that there is nothing in about the 8th that would cause him to hesitate for a moment, from entering in early in proceedings to "empty that uterus".

He is asked whether he thinks the law might have a "chilling effect" on some doctors, who might worry about being prosecuted for an illegal abortion.

I was fully convinced he was going to say "they ought grow a set".


By all means quotemine what he says in order to fit your bill. To do so in this case is beyond grasping at straws.

SusieBlue

antiskeptic wrote: »

I did listen back. And I would urge anyone who believes for a moment that a doctor "on the No side" admits the 8th had a hand in Savita's death listen to it too.

He makes it plain that there is nothing in about the 8th that would cause him to hesitate for a moment, from entering in early in proceedings to "empty that uterus".

He is asked whether he thinks the law might have a "chilling effect" on some doctors, who might worry about being prosecuted for an illegal abortion.

I was fully convinced he was going to say "they ought grow a set".


By all means quotemine what he says in order to fit your bill. To do so in this case is beyond grasping at straws.

That's exactly what you're doing, and have continuously done, on every post you've made about that woman.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Medical professionals on both side of the aisle agreeing the 8th played a part in the death of Savita.

Did you listen to the clip?

antiskeptic

Macha wrote: »

Sorry, antiskeptic but Dr Trevor Hayes with Doctors for Life admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that Savita should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. You can listen back if you wish.

The doctor doesn't say she should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. He doesn't even say words to that effect.

He says her condition was mis-managed and opportunities missed all along the way. That she went down the cascade from something the prof arul. calls manageable to something less manageable to something quite serious. Exactly as the reports say.

Sure. If it were him he would have terminated. Not because she requested it, but because he'd have figured it out for himself.

antiskeptic

What comes across from the clip is a man who is:

- passionately concerned for the woman's life and the life of the baby.
- won't countenance the loss of the women by dithering
- doesn't feel constrained by the 8th. Not even under the law of Savita's day.
- the notion of potential legal trouble doesn't even enter his head.

If Savita had him as a doctor, she'd be alive today.

If Savita had him and he's not in jail for illegal abortions, the something need be done about the doctors who fear legal action. Because there's a darn sight more places a doctor can face legal action for than just taking "a risk" in the event of an inevitable miscarriage.

A doctor who risks his patient because of his worries about legal action against him in the event he acts? Is that the kind of doctor you want? Or would you prefer Dr. Hayes

antiskeptic

Dr. Hayes says he would abort where the miscarriage was inevitable. He says's he would abort in the presence of a fetal heartbeat. He says he would intervene early on. He says he would't hesitate.

He does say, in response to the question whether the legal context was a contributing factor, that it was a lesser element.

Exactly like the HSE investigative report.

And he goes onto contextualize that: the doctor involved dithered. He wouldn't for a second.

Is the law to blame for one doctor dithering and the other not? Is the 8th to blame for the law then. Is the law now better?


Well done Dobbie btw. Good interview.

antiskeptic

Fascinating@ Dobbie says that the new legislation would allow for terminations along the lines of the 2013 Act. That there would be protections.

The very point was raised with you Delirium:

How do you prevent doctors being afraid of legal action under the new regime?

Because if they dither over the precise boundaries, on threat of being held to account for getting it wrong, then the patient suffers.

Just as Savita suffered. Because of dithering and confusion. Not because of the law which actually allows them to act. Proof: Dr Hayes!

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fascinating@ Dobbie says that the new legislation would allow for terminations along the lines of the 2013 Act. That there would be protections.

The very point was raised with you Delirium:

How do you prevent doctors being afraid of legal action under the new regime?

Because if they dither over the precise boundaries, on threat of being held to account for getting it wrong, then the patient suffers.

Just as Savita suffered. Because of dithering and confusion. Not because of the law which actually allows them to act. Proof: Dr Hayes!

Of course, repeal is hardly go to rollback that.


However, there will be additional allowances such as rape, incest, FFA or risk to health.


The wider the scope for abortion, the less dithering that will occur because there are less scenarios for legal restriction.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

The wider the scope for abortion, the less dithering that will occur because there are less scenarios for legal restriction.

The proposed legislation doesn't alter the essential problem. You will have, at Savita's 17 weeks, the issue of "serious risk to health / risk of death"

You've still got the potential for Doctor A acting because he considers there to be a serious risk to health and Doctor B not acting because he isn't sure whether he's crossed the threshold for serious risk to health.

Rather than death, you're going to have cases of serious damage to health (and possible death)

-

The root of the problem lies in lack of clarity about / uniformity of action around .. the law. Not the law itself.

-

You don't think the problem lies in providing clear guidelines? How can one doctor act (and not be prosecuted for an illegal abortion) when you're dealing with something that is pretty routine in the field and whose pathway towards increasing risk is clearly known.

.......

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a bleeding heart. Right there.

Graces7

antiskeptic wrote: »

The common marker is that it is unwanted. That's the reason. It is to be state sponsored.

The only reason you consider it otherwise is because you ( and the sponsoring state) don't see life in the womb as fully human.

That's your perogative. It neednt be mine.

What do you describe, for example, the widespread killing of female babies in India prior to the advent of ultrasound scanning (after which their abortion)?. They weren't wanted either.

I have family/ colleagues working to rescue abandoned babies in India and Nepal The men will not allow birth control or abortion lest they lose a precious boy. Many of these are born to women forced into prostitution who know that if they raise a girl that will be her fate at an early age.

Now we are seeing late term abortions due to scanning. One of my family saw a dr throwing a viable foetus int the rubbish and attacked him, The police arrested her then when she told/showed him, they released her and arrested the dr,

ffemale babies were not killed; they were dumped in buckets, ditches, rubbish heaps to die of exposure .... now they are prematurely aborted and dumped and we cannot save them.
And we have a room staffed 24/7 where a woman can leave her baby. no ??asked

We think of Ireland as superior to India, yet we are trying to stop what they are condemned for?

NB we raise all the babies we can; for too many it is hospice care. And they.are adopted within India

It can be done and is done. There is no human /humane need for abortion.

Overheal

Graces7 wrote: »

Many of these are born to women forced into prostitution who know that if they raise a girl that will be her fate at an early age.

There is no human /humane need for abortion.

??

antiskeptic

Overheal wrote: »

??

Methinks you miss the point with your contextual-deafness.

We should abort babies instead of tackling the ills of society? What kind of upside down world do you live in that you tackle the symptoms of the illness rather than the cause?

Your in the States right? Do you suppose they should abort kids born in poor neighbourhoods because they'll live a tough life?

Overheal

The guy who is context-deaf to differences between

The Holocaust
Genocides
Abortions

Lecturing someone else about context-deafness?

:pac: :P :eek: :rolleyes: :pac:

Thanks. I needed a laugh. Now, while it’s great you think we should “just simply” fix all of society’s woes (indeed, the rape and other problems in India say) doesn’t address the ones who fall in the middle - between the “cure” of society’s woes, and the illness. You would see a generation or two of girls born into being - I’ll pick a much nicer phrase - not much more than abused, meaty playthings their entire lives in India. Just for instance.

In the US, since you asked, were civilized enough that if a woman doesn’t want to birth a child into a life of poverty, she has the right not to. Hope that answers your question,

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

The proposed legislation doesn't alter the essential problem. You will have, at Savita's 17 weeks, the issue of "serious risk to health / risk of death"

You've still got the potential for Doctor A acting because he considers there to be a serious risk to health and Doctor B not acting because he isn't sure whether he's crossed the threshold for serious risk to health.

Rather than death, you're going to have cases of serious damage to health (and possible death)

-

The root of the problem lies in lack of clarity about / uniformity of action around .. the law. Not the law itself.

-

You don't think the problem lies in providing clear guidelines? How can one doctor act (and not be prosecuted for an illegal abortion) when you're dealing with something that is pretty routine in the field and whose pathway towards increasing risk is clearly known.

I'm not sure why you're struggling a simple conceit.


Currently, "risk to life" is the bar. This means a threat to life has to be established for doctors to act.


Additionally, it's retrospective in regards to whether a doctor was right to abort in any given situation. They perform the abortion and after that they will be reviewed to see if it actually met the criteria. All of which can have a chilling effect.



Allowing for "risk to health" means they can determine earlier that an abortion is allowed. It will also mean if "risk to life" is a concern then it's likely the doctors waited too long.


Can dithering happen? sure. But with a wider scope it means that the odds of the pregnant person dying are reduced.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're struggling a simple conceit.


Currently, "risk to life" is the bar. This means a threat to life has to be established for doctors to act.


Additionally, it's retrospective in regards to whether a doctor was right to abort in any given situation. They perform the abortion and after that they will be reviewed to see if it actually met the criteria. All of which can have a chilling effect.



Allowing for "risk to health" means they can determine earlier that an abortion is allowed. It will also mean if "risk to life" is a concern then it's likely the doctors waited too long.


Can dithering happen? sure. But with a wider scope it means that the odds of the pregnant person dying are reduced.

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.



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.

-

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.

antiskeptic

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

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

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

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

Auntie

Overheal

Praise Jesus

Delirium

MOD NOTE

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

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Thread re-opened

Timberrrrrrrr

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

Galwayguy35

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Timberrrrrrrr

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

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

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

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 .