Meanwhile, in Ireland

[temporal1]

Not a close vote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... a3efa0b166

Sad.

We Christians don't run the government. There's still a lot we can do with service, persuasion, and prayer. Just as we do in the United States.

i read, Ireland did not have Save the Storks busses, not needed.
there will now be need.

[MaxPC]

Praying for the young, foolish, and fooled.
Many laughed+partied as they traded their souls for the price of plane fare.

It would have been quite a feat for Ireland to stand against at-will abortion.
They are surrounded by it, with few exceptions; Poland, Hungary, Malta, i believe, are exceptions.

Not a close vote:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/ ... a3efa0b166

History, the Bible are replete with such stories of peoples trading their faith identity for the pursuit of the secular and carnal. Some peoples learned a hard lesson. Others never learned and disappeared from the face of the earth. I'm grieved for the Irish and will continue to pray for them to awaken to the Truth.

[Judas Maccabeus]

In my experience, a lot of the "yes" votes are coming because of the Catholic Church's damaged reputation. When they've been responsible for covering up child abuse and murder:https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-n ... 00-9979348
Not that I'm excusing pro-abortion advocacy, but my Irish friends say that the Catholic Church has lost credibility, and thus their position on the 8th amendment is also dismissed. Agreeing that when this issue is politicized, people vote for the wrong reasons. As much as the RCC is pushing the "no" vote now, it doesn't have the same impact that it used to.

It is not only this. The 8th amendment mandated "equal" rights for both the unborn child and the mother. This is simply bad medicine. You need to consider the mothers life and well being first, than work to save the unborn child if possible. Reason being, that if you don't and lose the mother in a misguided effort to save the child at all costs, you have lost both of them. While this is uncommon, it really does happen. An Indian woman in Ireland was killed by just such a sequence of decisions. Once the gestational sac ruptures that early a miscarriage is inevitable . Infection is surely going to follow.

She was denied an abortion because of Ireland's law as long as they had a heartbeat. They ended up losing both of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... lappanavar

Added to the scandal of Pubic Symphysiotomy instead of C-secs, largely propelled by their understanding of Catholic dogma.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... caesareans

A more rational law then amendment 8 might have stood. As it was it went down to defeat.

J.M.

Who hesitates somewhat to post this here. I am against abortion on demand, and against it in all but cases when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or the treatment that is necessary to safeguard the mother's life will have an adverse impact on the child. This happens more often than many would ever dream of.

I suspect I will be labeled "Pro-abortion" but I am not.

[temporal1]

It is not only this.
The 8th amendment mandated "equal" rights for both the unborn child and the mother.
This is simply bad medicine. You need to consider the mothers life and well being first, than work to save the unborn child if possible. Reason being, that if you don't and lose the mother in a misguided effort to save the child at all costs, you have lost both of them. While this is uncommon, it really does happen. An Indian woman in Ireland was killed by just such a sequence of decisions. Once the gestational sac ruptures that early a miscarriage is inevitable . Infection is surely going to follow.

She was denied an abortion because of Ireland's law as long as they had a heartbeat. They ended up losing both of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... lappanavar

Added to the scandal of Pubic Symphysiotomy instead of C-secs, largely propelled by their understanding of Catholic dogma.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... caesareans

A more rational law then amendment 8 might have stood. As it was it went down to defeat.
J.M.

Who hesitates somewhat to post this here. I am against abortion on demand, and against it in all but cases when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or the treatment that is necessary to safeguard the mother's life will have an adverse impact on the child. This happens more often than many would ever dream of.

I suspect I will be labeled "Pro-abortion" but I am not.

“rational” is dismissed once these matters devolve into free stuff, drinking parties+bandwagons.
it becomes more of a sporting event, like soccer or Roman gladiators. mob mentality.

people label, even on this forum. so, either way, there’s that.

different medical doctors/surgeons/OB’s, have stated that abortion is so rarely needed, it could be described as “never indicated.” lots of examples, one used a case of a pregnant child, 10, who gave birth by C-section, not physically (or mentally) mature for natural birth. child and infant did well.

i believe it’s impossible to legislate to serve every situation, every human law will fail some.
we have become accustomed to legislating all to provide for the (even rare) exception.
minority rule is now widespread legal mentality on all matters.

when exceptions are allowed, it becomes a matter of finding a doctor willing to sign-off on the abortion, including for reasons of fear of the mother’s potential depression, etc. (with this, who would not be approved?)

from there, laws are stretched+stretched, until, soon, the notion of “need of stated exception” is forgotten ..

examples: at-will abortion; no-fault divorce, birth control-for married women, etc.
courts tire of hassling with legal language over this or that, so, sweeping allowances are made: everyone gets whatever they want, no questions asked. ultimately, paid with tax dollars!

personally, i don’t doubt your statement about life-threatening cases.
even tho i have read credible statements to the contrary.

human law and courts are not up to the task of efficiently/correctly upholding every individual case.
“every individual’s right,” is a fantasy that is basis for our highly litigious, amoral culture.
my 2 cents.

[Judas Maccabeus]

personally, i don’t doubt your statement about life-threatening cases.
even tho i have read credible statements to the contrary.

If you are thinking of the most famous one, it was C Everet Koop, MD, "I have never seen such a case in my 40 years of practice."

No joke, he was a Pediatric cardiac surgeon.

The people that see this most frequently are the Medical oncologists and High risk perinatologists. One of the latter is a very good friend, and a committed christian. She just about popped a cork when she heard that.

J.M.

[francis]

In my experience, a lot of the "yes" votes are coming because of the Catholic Church's damaged reputation. When they've been responsible for covering up child abuse and murder:https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-n ... 00-9979348
Not that I'm excusing pro-abortion advocacy, but my Irish friends say that the Catholic Church has lost credibility, and thus their position on the 8th amendment is also dismissed. Agreeing that when this issue is politicized, people vote for the wrong reasons. As much as the RCC is pushing the "no" vote now, it doesn't have the same impact that it used to.

It is not only this. The 8th amendment mandated "equal" rights for both the unborn child and the mother. This is simply bad medicine. You need to consider the mothers life and well being first, than work to save the unborn child if possible. Reason being, that if you don't and lose the mother in a misguided effort to save the child at all costs, you have lost both of them. While this is uncommon, it really does happen. An Indian woman in Ireland was killed by just such a sequence of decisions. Once the gestational sac ruptures that early a miscarriage is inevitable . Infection is surely going to follow.

She was denied an abortion because of Ireland's law as long as they had a heartbeat. They ended up losing both of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_ ... lappanavar

Added to the scandal of Pubic Symphysiotomy instead of C-secs, largely propelled by their understanding of Catholic dogma.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... caesareans

A more rational law then amendment 8 might have stood. As it was it went down to defeat.

J.M.

Who hesitates somewhat to post this here. I am against abortion on demand, and against it in all but cases when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or the treatment that is necessary to safeguard the mother's life will have an adverse impact on the child. This happens more often than many would ever dream of.

I suspect I will be labeled "Pro-abortion" but I am not.

I agree with your points completely.

[temporal1]

personally, i don’t doubt your statement about life-threatening cases.
even tho i have read credible statements to the contrary.

If you are thinking of the most famous one, it was C Everet Koop, MD, "I have never seen such a case in my 40 years of practice."

No joke, he was a Pediatric cardiac surgeon.

The people that see this most frequently are the Medical oncologists and High risk perinatologists. One of the latter is a very good friend, and a committed christian. She just about popped a cork when she heard that.
J.M.

Dr Koop’s statement was at the top of my list.
i didn’t name names, havng no sources at hand. but, his statement, and notoriety, are memorable.
evenso, i have lived long enough to have seen a few things IRL.

we knew one young family in which the young wife was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer when she was 3 months pregnant. they had a two year old girl. she went through with the pregnancy, delivered a healthy boy. she did not live long after, leaving grieving husband+family. i have no idea if abortion was considered (by anyone.) i have no idea if her chances of beating the cancer would have improved .. abortion was never mentioned.

we had friends who had a late pregnancy. in the 1980’s. she was asked if she would have amniocentesis (to check for Down Syndrome.) she told me privately, she would not. she said, the test had some risks to the infant, it couldn’t be done early, AND, why do it, when she+her husband would refuse to abort, anyway? .. i felt the same. that was before sonograms were used (early+often) .. before lots of things. we were just young families then. they both had advanced degrees.
they had a normal, healthy baby girl.

we had 3 early spontaneous abortions, never had an inkling as to “why?” all but unknown in our families. we had 2 healthy living babies, now 30-40’s. i never thought about “what if?” .. only, whatever baby we had, we would love and care for, “condition”+all. we did not “count fingers+toes,” however many they had, they were ours to love. the doctors did what doctors do, they told us the babies were healthy+thriving. we counted our blessings.

our babies were not planned. but, very much welcomed.
of my generation and older, who was planned? other than, you were married, if babies resulted, then, you had babies. birth control pills became newly available-for married couples. we did not use them.

babies change everything. that’s “the” plan. the plan the world turned on, in most of history.

it seemed, “everyone” knew of some surprise baby that may not have been wanted initially, but, that turned out to be the family’s greatest joy. this was a common story.

abortion now used as a chosen form of birth control has become reality, but, for many, remains impossible to accept as such.

strange how free/cheap birth control pills “for everyone,” now including children, did NOT end abortions, at all. when they first surfaced, women dreamed of what a huge improvement they would be - for married couples, of course.

i have to believe, if those early folks had known how quickly those pills, and all that results because of them, would make their way to unmarrieds, even to teens+children, they might have been banned from the get-go, rather than “the stuff of married life dreams.” (i.e., they began as a dream for many. societal nightmares have resulted.)

[temporal1]

Less than a year since Ireland’s vote (see OP)

“Over 90% of Irish doctors refusing to commit abortions“
https://thebridgehead.ca/2019/01/29/ove ... abortions/

I’ve noted before that the strange alliance between progressive politicians and Muslim minorities has an expiration date if religious immigrants are ever faced with the same attacks on conscience regularly faced by Christians in the West, especially on issues such as abortion and sexuality.

Here in Canada, for example, Justin Trudeau discovered that Muslims are actually not on board with his abortion agenda when he attempted to change the requirements for the
Canada Summer Jobs Program by inserting a values test into the application and faced strong pushback from Islamic groups.

Muslims also pushed back on Kathleen Wynne’s radical sex education curriculum.
And now, it seems that Ireland is discovering that their commitment to diversity may soon involve more than simply pushing Christians around. (From the Irish Catholic)

Ireland’s reliance on Muslim doctors in hospitals around the country may derail Government plans to roll out a national abortion service, a leading obstetrician has said. .. ..

.. In fact, over 90% of Irish doctors are refusing to perform abortions, and many hospitals are having trouble finding staff to assist with abortions even where there is a willing physician.

The London Times reported that in smaller hospitals, it has been difficult for doctors to find any staff at all willing to assist in abortion procedures, with less than 5% of general practitioners indicating their willingness to work for Simon Harris’s abortion regime—about 200 out of 4,000 GPs.

According to the New York Times, this is already making it extremely difficult for women to obtain abortions—one woman said she had to spend three days on the phone before she managed to find a doctor willing to do it and a clinic which actually had the necessary equipment.

Despite the referendum result, abortion supporters are discovering that Ireland may have voted against the 8th Amendment, but most did not actually vote for the abortion regime they desire—and they certainly have no intention of bloodying their hands along with Simon Harris and his gang.

[MaxPC]

This is why NY added the clause in their hideous legislation that abortions can be performed by non-doctors.

[temporal1]

This is why NY added the clause in their hideous legislation that abortions can be performed by
non-doctors.

yes. “authorized” is quite a word in this context:

.. authorized health care practitioner for whom abortion is within their scope of practice.“

odd how the AMA, usually so territorial about their professional skills/services, would allow this.

the (cough) love reflected herein of mothers and their babies is (perhaps, an “expanded” modernized definition of love). not a definition i can understand or appreciate.