abortion, Culture

The Irish Baby Slaughter


Tagged: , , , , , ,

I spent some time chatting with my friend Will Maule over lunch today, a journalist and writer with Faithwire. Last week, Will travelled to be in the epi-centre of the abortion referendum in Ireland and was able to glean fascinating insight – beyond the bias of the media – as to what was actually occurring on the ground.

As we discussed, why would the Jewish people have asked for Barabbas rather than Jesus? What was going on behind the scenes then? (See Matthew 27:15-26).

What is still going on behind the scenes now? 

Listen to our lunch-time chat about the Irish Baby Slaughter and consider how God might be stirring you. Go ahead and sign up to Counterfeit Vlog while you’re at it! 

(Will’s full article we talked about can be read here)

53 Comments

  • Ireland is a secular nation.
    Many many people are not spiritual or religious and do not have to agree with, follow, or acknowledge religious doctrines.

    • I agree with the first half of your comment. But strongly disagree with the easy comeback that “religion” and “spirituality” are the precursors for a pro-life conviction. That’s insulting to both religious and irreligious who believe that unborn babies have the right not to be murdered. Thanks

      • So what’s the justification for girls and women being forced to give birth against their will to protect an early term fetus, if you don’t mind my asking?

        Particularly given the fact that early term fetuses have no consciousness or ability to experience pain or suffering, there must be a very solid justification for a prohibition on early term abortion.

      • Don’t mind you asking at all, Amanda!

        My first comment was to dismiss the assumption that the pro-life campaigners are only religious or spiritual. That’s irrational and actually reflects your blinkered thanking on this whole area.

        The primary justification for anyone opposing abortion is that of essential ethics, morality and the rights of the unborn. Obviously there are other complexities involved in this, worthy of conversation, but the facts remain that women’s rights vs those of the unborn are not sufficiently addressed at a moral level. (ie the Mother doesn’t die as a result of ‘losing their rights’ whereas the little baby does). Perhaps you’ll argue that morality isn’t a reality in a secular society?

        But, truly Amanda, what you say about foetal consciousness, pain and suffering is inhumane and untrue.

      • So what is the justification for giving an early term fetus (which is unconscious and unable to experience pain or suffering) the right to condemn girls and women to forced birth against their will?

        Why should early term fertilized eggs have rights, particularly rights that hinder and cross over the rights of girls and women?

        How is termination of early term fetuses, which have no consciousness or ability to suffer or be aware whatsoever, an ethical issue ?

      • The catalogue of assumptions you’re making is unreal. Principally:

        Do you honestly believe that “foetal unconsciousness” is a legitimate justification for actually ceasing the life of a person?

        How is your position even close to being ethical or moral? (You didn’t answer the question about secularisation vs morality…?)

      • Well in order to answer the first question I’d need to agree that aborting fertilized eggs is equivalent in ethical grit to ceasing people’s lives; when I’d actually say it’s preventing potential lives;

        But either way to answer your question, the lack of a consciousness AND the inability to suffer are what make the termination of the fetuses ethically sound.
        No suffering occurs from early term abortion. However MUCH suffering does occur constantly from unwanted, uncared for children being pushed into the world.

        Can you please clarify your question on secularism vs morality?

      • Not quite following your first // there tbh.

        Conscious foetal suffering (which I believe is very debatable and spuriously ‘disproven’) is not (or at least shouldn’t be) the plumb-line. The rights of the baby are of paramount importance.

        I’d love some reliable statistics on the unwanted/uncared for babies of the world but the selfishness of abortive culling can not ever be the answer.

        Based on the secular country of Ireland – as you say – I’d like to know whether that excludes morality? Ie if one isn’t ‘religious’ does that render them without morals? You started off your argument from a false basis (that those who oppose abortion are religious)…

      • So you need someone to convince you that you can’t be conscious before your consciousness is developed?

        Again – given the updated, most solid pre-natal/fetal medical research has proven these facts about fetuses, and they are not my or anyone’s opinions – why should a fertilized egg have rights that force girls and women to give birth against their wills ?

        I wrote a piece on here (I think it’s titled something like “abortion is vegan friendly and ethical”) in late 2017 – I’ll link it to you when I find it – that includes some really solid sources of information.

        Ireland is by definition secular, not my personal definition; It excludes morality that is only justified by religious doctrines.

        Morality is an independent concept not tied to religions and spirituality.

      • No, I don’t…I’m saying that I disagree that this is the issue (I’ve explained that).

        Will defo read.

        Thanks for clarifying that, for you, morality is inextricably linked with religion. I think billions of people would disagree with you on this!

        But, coming full-circle, obviously I am “religious”. I get what you mean by saying that that. But please let me assure you that “religion” is a man-made concept/structure. Let’s keep it simple, ‘does God exist?’ is the real question…have you and I evolved from amoeba and monkeys? (I simply don’t have the faith for that).

        Rather than “religious” I am absolutely fascinated by Jesus Christ…the historicity of the biblical manuscripts – and more than three decades knowing /trusting Him – reveal him to me as being who he says he was!

        As C S Lewis said:

        “ I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

        So, yes, for many “pro-lifers” (not all!) the conviction is based on the truth found in the Bible that clearly reveals a loving Creator. Romans 1 describes this as being as obvious as creation (the sun in the sky or the tree in your garden). Think about it – we’ve become so calloused in our thinking that we don’t see the wonder every single day. I’ve seen open heart surgery and am staggered that anyone could not believe in a Creator.

        So, with this colossally important issue of abortion, my ‘ultimate answer’ to all your points (not the only answer, mind) is Psalm 139. You might not have ever read it but – regardless of what you may think – this is the truth and the answer to so many of these cultural/societal issues we’re seeing at this time in history. But make no mistake, these are historic days we’re living in.

        Psalm 139 is one of the most beautiful and interpretive pieces of poetry on the planet. I’d love to know what you think.

        Thanks for reading/commenting/debating – appreciate your time/strength of feeling.

      • Please don’t start again, Amanda. I left this well and respectfully with you yesterday. Of course I do – I never denied that.

        What I’ve said clearly and factually is that:

        1) Your starting point was wrong by asserting that everyone with pro-life convictions are “religious” or “spiritual”. You should just accept that this is plainly incorrect. Many people who aren’t “religious” will disagree with you.

        2) Despite having “religious” convictions, there are other non-spiritual reasons for finding your view offensive. But we’ve bottomed out that we have a radically different understanding of morality.

        I don’t want to argue so, respectfully, please let’s leave it there.

        Best

      • Start again? I always respond to all comments, so I’m not sure what you mean by that.

        I don’t necessarily think defending your claims is arguing, it is standing up for the bold claims you’ve made. If you’re so confident in your position, you should be able to easily defend it.

        If you’re advocating for forcing girls and women to give birth against their will (which you are), then there must be very solid justification for this – What is the justification? (Or do you have none?)

      • You’re obviously not willing to agree to disagree which is a shame – that’s exactly what I meant by “starting again”. You know that full well.

        I’ve made bold claims, you’ve made bold claims…we disagree. I believe in a creator God, you don’t. Aside from that, I have a different view of morality which isn’t indoctrinated by religion. As will billions of other people.

        Settle down.

        Your stating point/assertion was wrong as I’ve repeatedly pointed out but you don’t have the courage to admit it.

        I’ve explained my justification already which is both “religious” and not. So, with all due respect, please don’t ask me to repeat myself!

        Have a great evening.

      • Well, to be fair, you’re as equally unwilling to agree with me, which I’m not complaining about, because we both have our own positions on the matter and the right to express our views.

        How does your belief in creationism justify forced birth on all girls and women, despite their personal beliefs?
        What does creationism even have to do with abortion rights?

        Settle down is a bit of a throw away comment, not really pertinent or discrediting my point at all.

        I must have missed the nonreligious justification because it really is not clear? What is your adversity to providing a clear, concise, to the point explanation backing up your claim?
        Your comment section is open so it appears you’re willing to have honest discourse, so you can see how it’s only fair to ask for you to provide this.

      • I’m not asking you to agree with me; I’m asking you to accept that your opening comment was incorrect… which you still haven’t and which is actually the non-religious justification you’re obsessing over.

        Maybe you should ask yourself why many people without the convictions I have would also disagree with you. Perhaps they’re the guys you’d be less offended at?

        Throw away comments?! As in, (or don’t you have one?).

        Here’s a throw away comment for you: because you don’t happen to believe in a creator God doesn’t mean He doesn’t exist. It amazes me that you believe that you and I fam about from nothing. Literally, that’s what you believe.

        But I’ve respectfully agreed to disagree with you. But that’s not good enough for you. Which is intriguing.

        Did you read Psalm 139?

      • “Ireland is a secular nation.
        Many many people are not spiritual or religious and do not have to agree with, follow, or acknowledge religious doctrines.”

        That is my first comment; what specifically is incorrect about it?

        Asking if you do or don’t have a valid justification for forcing girls and women to give birth against their will is certainly not a throw away comment, it’s directly related to focal point of your piece. It’s simply questioning what you’re advocating for.

        I’m not debating whether creationism is accurate or not, I’m debating whether it’s justified to force people to give birth in order to prevent terminating a fertilized egg, and whether it’s fair to use one specific religion as the basis of that law (which is the opposite of secularism). Creationism (including all religions) has nothing to do with the legislation in secular nations.

        People who have no valid point to make are the ones who choose to respectfully disagree (on a topic they brought up, no less).

        If that’s your best effort to back up your position then I rest my case.

      • Lol. This is hilarious! You still can’t see that your opening comment assumes an absolute synonymity between religious faith and a pro-life conviction…? I rest mine

      • It most certainly does not assume anything. Your post is religious in content, YOU brought religion into the topic in your post, not I.
        Perhaps you need to read your post again.

      • Correct. But then you wrongly assumed that my only argument against abortion was religious… for the record, you still haven’t answered the question revealing the error of you ways about those who aren’t religious but who would find your view heinous….

      • If your argument for abortion is not religious, why are your only points in the post against abortion a reference to the gospel of Mathew and a link to a faith centered blog (which, not to mention, is what your own blog is)?

        Where is the nonreligious point against early term abortion rights ? In your post or anywhere ?

      • You’re asking me to repeat myself again…this is rather tedious. Go back and read the comments about non-religious morality…the answer to the question about why countless people – without faith – are still pro-life. You’re obsessing over my faith-based conviction when I’ve already given you both sides…deary me

      • Pro-life laws require (not only votes, which Ireland had the overwhelming majority pro-choice vote) valid justification.
        Most people in Ireland (as well as the United States) are statistically pro-choice regarding early term abortion according to Pew Research.

        In what specific way does morality justify forced birth and illegalizing early term abortion?

      • Correct, I am seriously asking you that, and have been all along. A VALID explanation please (meaning not opinion based).

      • But your assumption revealed your limited understanding about why swathes of others would agree with me about abortion but disagree with me about God!

      • Familiar? Then you’ll be aware of the book of James – 2:19 “You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.” Familiarity isn’t the issue…

      • As I said, I have read it, many times. There is nothing you can show me from the bible that I have not already read with my own eyes.
        Nothing in the bible or any religious book justifies forced birth, period.

      • And this is where you and I are poles apart…I don’t consider the finite margins of my own mind and sensibilities to be the governing reality of life. I look at the moon and stars and I worship. You look at women’s rights and bow to an idol

      • So you think your choice to worship something justifies a law that forces girls and women to give birth… Interesting.

      • No, me personally not practicing any religions does not justify babies to be killed. I have never made any such claim or implication.

      • Being disrespected and being hurt are two very different realities…much like pro-life convictions being synonymous with religious faith and….not. Try harder

      • Ok fine, if feeling disrespected is more important to you than seeing my point that Harry Potter is equally as horrifying and amazing in plot as the bible, then that is still not my fault.

      • And if ‘being right’ is more important to you that having a serious convo about faith or abortion or non-religious morality, or the error in your original comment…then fine. But you’re having a laugh if you’re seriously comparing Harry Potter with the Bible…on so many levels. It’s actually not with honouring with an answer. I’d suggest if you really were familiar with the Bible, you’d have done your research around it’s historical reliability…

      • A serious conversation means honestly seeking the truth (aka, attempting to be right).

        You suggest that the bible being horrifying and amazing somehow relates to the topic or makes the bible valid at all, so I pointed out that there are many books (religious and not) that are equally amazing and horrifying.

        Harry Potter has much historically accurate content as well (time and place, language, societal structure, culture, values/moral), of course with a few silly things sprinkled throughout to keep the reader’s attention.

      • Seeking the truth doesn’t equate in attempting to be right…I’d argue the exact opposite. Seeking the truth ultimately starts by laying down pre-conceptions. Comparing the content of Harry Potter to the Bible isn’t a sensible starting point if you’re seeking truth.

      • Ps . Peter Hitchens on abortion (2007):

        ‘He revealed that many women had come to him asking him to abort their babies in the years following his trial, thinking he would oblige because of his generous and brave treatment of ‘Nellie’. To their surprise, he had refused, and did not regret having done so. He recalled: ‘I have never known a woman who, when the baby was born, was not overjoyed that I had not killed it.’ ‘

        http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/05/safe-legal-and-very-common-the-abortion-epidemic-originally-published-in-2007.html

      • The fetal and prenatal information we currently have gives us much clearer insight and solid conclusion than we had eleven years ago when the sentience of early term fetuses was still in question.

  • “How is termination of early term fetuses, which have no consciousness or ability to suffer or be aware whatsoever, an ethical issue.” That is curious reasoning. Of course it is an ethical issue. What about someone in a coma but who has a good chance of, at some stage, regaining their health? Is the verdict the same for them — pull the plug immediately and hope that they would have never had a chance to recover their consciousness? The big difference, of course, is that a human fetus has an indisputable and individual opportunity to live — a high chance, if left alone, to become a person like you and I. Are you saying that if a being is unaware and unconscious, there is adequate ethical reasoning to end its life? This is a wobbly assertion on so many levels.

Comments are closed.