Irish abortion referendum

[SomeRandom]

As others have said, this referendum has little to do with the case of Savita Halappanavar. The Republic of Ireland's Health Service Executive (HSE) is understood to have made an out-of-court settlement with the husband of a woman who died in hospital after a miscarriage, so hers was a case of medical negligence, and nothing to do with the law.

Abortion is pre-eminently used by prostitutes and women of loose morals to facilitate their life styles, as a method of contraception after the event, in fact.

So the solution is, abstain from prostitution. Is it so unreasonable? "Deu 23:17 No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute."

lol wut?

 

[Subduction Zone]

lol wut?

Since abortion foes can't find any rational reason or even a consistent biblical reason to ban abortion they have to attack the person that needs an abortion.

 

[outlawState]

It is not just women.
Men whose choices result in the responsibilities that come with parenthood also get to dump the responsibilities by offing their progeny.

And why would a man bother with responsible sex when he can foist the responsibilities off onto his partner? Why should a man feel any responsibility for the baby, when the woman can just decide "S/he is just a clump of cells. Kill it." regardless of what the father thinks any way?

My point is this:
Feticide rights are more about the fathers than the mothers. If men didn't make babies that they don't want, and walk away, women would be less likely to abort their children.
Tom

I never said that men should not be criminalized or let off for treating women as prostitutes. It was a fundamental principle of the Levitical law that a man would be forced to marry such a woman, or at least pay the bride price if her father objected to such a marriage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

“And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman’s husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges’ [orders]. But if there is a fatality, you shall give a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." - Exodus 21:22-25

One more note about this verse. It is the only verse that I know of whose interpretation changed due to a court decision. This verse's translation in some Bible changed apparently due to Roe vs. Wade:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/03/22/mischief-follows-in-partisan-bible-translations/

Here is how Exodus 21:22-25 read in the New American Standard Bible’s 1977 revision of its 1971 original translation:

And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

But here’s the same passage in 1995 in the updated current version of the NASB:

If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

 

[outlawState]

Since abortion foes can't find any rational reason or even a consistent biblical reason to ban abortion they have to attack the person that needs an abortion.

You're misreading me. I am not a Catholic in I that my beliefs are based in foetal "rights to life," that I concede the bible does not support from a theological perspective, especially where such are the product of unlawful or immoral practices.

Rather I come from the "God detests infant sacrifices to Molech" perspective. Jeremiah 32:35. Killing children has been practiced since time immemorial. Abortion is just one facet of it. It is an inherently detesable act, unless the byproduct of lawful punishment of the parents.

Thus any just and moral society will act in such a way as to make such practices unnecessary and to criminalize the act itself. That a society seeks rather to move in the opposite direction and to legitimize such practices says everything one needs to know about Irish society, which given previous referendums seeking to cast of all moral restraints, is heading on a one way spiral into the atheistic hedonist abyss. Heck they even elected a gay prime minister. We knew everything that we needed to know about the Irish, long before this vote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're misreading me. I am not a Catholic in I that my beliefs are based in foetal "rights to life," that I concede the bible does not support from a theological perspective, especially where such are the product of unlawful or immoral practices.

Rather I come from the "God detests infant sacrifices to Molech" perspective. Jeremiah 32:35. Killing children has been practiced since time immemorial. Abortion is just one facet of it. It is an inherently detesable act, unless the byproduct of lawful punishment of the parents.

Thus any just and moral society will act in such a way as to make such practices unnecessary and to criminalize the act itself. That a society seeks rather to move in the opposite direction and to legitimize such practices says everything one needs to know about Irish society, which given previous referendums seeking to cast of all moral restraints, is heading on a one way spiral into the atheistic hedonist abyss. Heck they even elected a gay prime minister. We knew everything that we needed to know about the Irish, long before this vote.

No one is sacrificing children to an imaginary god. And if you want to claim that a fetus has all the rights of a human being the burden of proof is upon you. The abortion restraint is not a "moral restraint" if anything it is an immoral one. What other restraints have the Irish thrown off that you think were examples that support your claim? You seem to have an odd out of date concept of morals.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Looks like the Yes vote will win:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44241521

 

[Sunstone]

Abortion is pre-eminently used by prostitutes and women of loose morals to facilitate their life styles, as a method of contraception after the event, in fact.

Source? Interesting how you demonize women who have abortions. Does that help your conscience when it comes to denying them one in, say, cases when their lives are at jeopardy?

 

[Sunstone]

It is not just women.
Men whose choices result in the responsibilities that come with parenthood also get to dump the responsibilities by offing their progeny.

And why would a man bother with responsible sex when he can foist the responsibilities off onto his partner? Why should a man feel any responsibility for the baby, when the woman can just decide "S/he is just a clump of cells. Kill it." regardless of what the father thinks any way?

My point is this:
Feticide rights are more about the fathers than the mothers. If men didn't make babies that they don't want, and walk away, women would be less likely to abort their children.
Tom

More demonization. This time of both men and women. If only your knew the truth -- and could bring yourself to respect it. But since you can't find positive reasons to argue against abortion, you resort to slandering the people who have them.

 

[Sunstone]

I've known a few women who have had an abortion. In each case that I'm personally aware of, the woman agonized over the decision and it could have at one point or another gone the other way.

I have not yet known a woman -- except one -- who was happy to have an abortion. That single exception was a woman who had an abortion to end an ectopic pregnancy. In such cases, the fetus cannot survive even if no abortion occurs but the woman's life is at stake. She was, by the way, generally anti-abortion until her ectopic pregnancy happened.

Other than her, I've never known a woman to feel happy at having an abortion.

Of course, this is a big world, and I am sure there are some pretty callous women out there. But I've long suspected that anyone so callous they could easily elect to have an abortion is probably not much of a mother anyway.

To demonize all women (or men) who have been involved in having an abortion strikes me as the very height of sanctimonious outrage. It deserves scorn for what it is.

There are, in my view, genuine and reasonable arguments against abortion. I do not happen to find them compelling, but I do recognize them as genuine and reasonable, and often enough made in good faith. But demonizing people only deserves contempt.

 

[SomeRandom]

Since abortion foes can't find any rational reason or even a consistent biblical reason to ban abortion they have to attack the person that needs an abortion.

Ahh but of course. When bereft of a rational argument why not just attack the evil muderess!?

I suppose in fairness @columbus seems like a pretty reasonable chap. Sometimes. For a pro lifer anyway

 

[Sunstone]

Obviously no one changes the others mind on this subject. Its like the gun debate. Peoples opinions are generally deep seated and not bendable. You and I both have children. We love them dearly. We each for personal reasons have differing opinions on this subject. So, adoption? No. What to do with them? Good question. I just think we can ,as a society, put our heads together and come up with a better solution than abortion.
Respectfully

We disagree on this issue, Dave, but I do appreciate the fact that you do not demonize the women who get abortions, nor would I suspect that such a thing crosses your mind. If any final resolution of this issue ever comes about it will because of people like you on both sides of the issue reaching a fair compromise.

 

[outlawState]

To demonize all women (or men) who have been involved in having an abortion strikes me as the very height of sanctimonious outrage. It deserves scorn for what it is.

I can't think of anyone who has ever demonized "all" for being involved with an abortion. Abortion is a medical process that is useful for saving lives. It's just that it can be abused, as everything can be abused - absolutely everything can be abused.

Abortion can be abused to make it a lifestyle choice, which is what "pro lifers" desire "a woman's right to choose" they say, but what they mean is "a woman's right to chose based on her own personal whim." Whoever gave a pregnant woman the right to be the arbiter of morality anyway?

The statistics on "repeat" abortions are quite interesting. According to the (UK) Department of Health’s abortion statistics report, in 2010 ...approximately 34% were repeat abortions. The percentage of repeat abortions was found to increase with age: 8% of those under 18 years old had a repeat abortion compared with 44% of women over the age of 35.

This is pretty conclusive evidence that abortion is simply being used as an alternative form of contraception.

 

[SomeRandom]

I can't think of anyone who has ever demonized "all" for being involved with an abortion. Abortion is a medical process that is useful for saving lives. It's just that it can be abused, as everything can be abused - absolutely everything can be abused.

Abortion can be abused to make it a lifestyle choice, which is what "pro lifers" desire "a woman's right to choose" they say, but what they mean is "a woman's right to chose based on her own personal whim." Whoever gave a pregnant woman the right to be the arbiter of morality anyway?

The statistics on "repeat" abortions are quite interesting. According to the (UK) Department of Health’s abortion statistics report, in 2010 ...approximately 34% were repeat abortions. The percentage of repeat abortions was found to increase with age: 8% of those under 18 years old had a repeat abortion compared with 44% of women over the age of 35.

This is pretty conclusive evidence that abortion is simply being used as an alternative form of contraception.

Either that or conclusive evidence that pregnancies are at higher risk of health concerns as you age, which is what doctors seem to say.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-a.../#what-are-the-health-risks-of-late-pregnancy

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can't think of anyone who has ever demonized "all" for being involved with an abortion. Abortion is a medical process that is useful for saving lives. It's just that it can be abused, as everything can be abused - absolutely everything can be abused.

Including ignorant and defamatory generalizations, such as

Abortion can be abused to make it a lifestyle choice, which is what "pro lifers" desire ...

... a perfect example of a disgusting smear attempt.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Guardian reports:

Irish abortion referendum: Save the 8th campaign concedes defeat​

 

[outlawState]

Including ignorant and defamatory generalizations, such as

​

... a perfect example of a disgusting smear attempt.

Sorry, I mean "pro choicers". Yes it would be a smear on pro-lifers,

As for pro choicers, not a smear at all

"The United States pro-choice movement (also known as the United States abortion-rights movement) is a sociopolitical movement in the United States supporting the view that a woman should have the legal right to an elective abortion..."

 

[outlawState]

Either that or conclusive evidence that pregnancies are at higher risk of health concerns as you age, which is what doctors seem to say.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/pregnancy-a.../#what-are-the-health-risks-of-late-pregnancy

Don't worry about health "now." There may be a residual category of health issues, but one in five pregnancies, or 21 per cent, ends in an abortion, where as generally a woman has a 1/10000 chance of dying during child birth in the UK, or 0.01% chance. So for every endangered mother there are roughly 2000 abortions.

As for post 35 years old, the statistics suggest that there might be up to a 0.3% chance of a mother dying during child birth in developed countries, which is still 60 times less than the abortion rate for women generally.

Thus it is incredibly difficult to see any connection between health of the mother and abortion rates.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry, I mean "pro choicers". Yes it would be a smear on pro-lifers,

As for pro choicers, not a smear at all

"The United States pro-choice movement (also known as the United States abortion-rights movement) is a sociopolitical movement in the United States supporting the view that a woman should have the legal right to an elective abortion..."

And it does not say ...

sociopolitical movement in the United States supporting "a woman's right to chose based on her own personal whim."
​

... where whim is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a capricious or eccentric and often sudden idea or turn of the mind."

Your perspective on this matter is precisely an ugly ad hominem and disgusting smear.

 

[Estro Felino]

Well...let's say the Russians have a vivacious sex life...but should use contraception.