There is practically no medical “need” for abortion, except to save the life of the mother (already catered for). To kill a human being to address the risk to the “health” (what does this word mean?) of its mother should be unacceptable to the average individual, let alone a health professional, who is in the business of saving lives. The safety of the pregnant mother is already better in Ireland than most other Western countries. Current treatment methods can be further guided by appropriate medical protocols to ensure adherence to best practice and be in conformity with the law. Exceptions are very small in number, and legislating for exceptions in a general way is commonly regarded as bad law. Using medicine to justify abortion is a revolting concept!

Logic and statistics do not support the “need” for abortion. If Irish healthcare and social practices already support a safer environment for pregnant women than in countries where abortion occurs, alongside a much lower abortion rate, then such healthcare position fails.

For more analysis of the healthcare aspect of the Eight Amendment, please click here : Detailed Analysis of healthcare aspects of the Eight Amendment – 2018

The argument for abortion in this referendum campaign is being made on “compassion” and sometimes on “comfort (do it in Ireland)” grounds. Yet the price to be paid here involves the killing of human beings – where is the compassion / comfort / progressiveness / liberalism in such killings – is this not brutality instead? There is also the slogan “my body, my choice” which infers that men should be excluded from decision making in this area – discouraging the nature, role and involvement of fatherhood. Where is this going in terms of so-called “modern” concepts?

What about other arguments for abortion: (1) to be in line with current fashion in secular thinking (is this not group think again)? (2) family / peer pressure? (3) engaging in a power play? (already addressed) (4) to be anti-Christian? (being promoted by some elites – see elsewhere in this website). Behind the scenes there is also likely to be “the business opportunities” for abortion – note Planned Parenthood in the USA.

Many of the repeal / pro-abortion advocates use really “hard” / difficult cases to argue for abortion (which can be quite well refuted), in order to argue for an extremely liberal abortion regime. But these “hard” cases constitute less than 1% of the likely numbers of abortions that may happen (based on comparable figures internationally). Does this not show the weakness of their overall arguments? Do this not demonstrate the inherent strength of the pro-life position?

Abortion is not a victimless act (it involves the killing of a human being) and so must be a matter of public interest and morality. It is not “merely” a matter of private judgement or action. The state relies on the concept that the legislation and governance it undertakes is for the common good instead of being for sectional interests, so therefore all legislation and even regulation should be ”moral”. Law and regulation is there not just for controlling human behaviour, but to guide our behaviour in outlining what is right. Using law beyond its original intention of resolving disputes, however, puts it into difficult territory, where its capabilities start to misfire, as in the case of legislating for abortion. If the law can no longer be moral, then withdrawal of the recognition of the moral authority of the law by Christianity (“unjust law is no law”- St. Augustine of Hippo) will show up the secular state’s direction and tendency towards tyranny and the need to repudiate this.

Is it not strange that having abolishes the death penalty for pretty well all crimes nearly 20 years ago, that the elite are seeking to re-introduce it for the most vulnerable section of society?

To regard children as a burden as many secularists advocate (e.g. as per Margaret Sanger) rather than as a blessing is a pro death attitude.  The human race must have children. Life is precious.

As a society, we don’t really have the right to remove a natural right from a section of the Irish people. The right to life is an inalienable one. Society should not be able to grant or remove that right. Yet the politicians and lawyers are insisting on that vote. Is it not tantamount to a crime in its own right to insist on such a vote?  Has not power gone to their heads and must they not be “corrected” (nice word!) in this? Is this referendum not going further than this removal of  the right to life and inserting abortion specifically as a constitutional right? Is it not true that such a direct constitutional right to abortion does not exist in any other country’s constitution, including the USA? Is this not abuse of the constitution?

There has been aggression used by supporters of repeal the 8^th as well as, for example, the refusal by Amnesty to return foreign funds for use in the 8^th amendment – in contravention of the law. The new “high priests” don’t like the law being applied to them – do they regard themselves as above it? Other signs of this have been refusal of hotels to host pro life meetings for fear of retaliation and refusal by billboard companies to display pro-life advertising. Such repeal groups are the new “bully boys”.

Martin Luther King, the 20^th century civil rights hero, had critical words about communism, which when reread today have the same impact on secularism. He disagreed with ethical relativism. He opined: “With no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything – force, violence, murder, lying – is a justifiable means to the end” i.e. anyone who rejects transcendence and revelation must deny any universally binding morality. For example, this universal morality (the natural law) was used by the allies to put the top Nazis on trial in the Nuremberg trials after WW2 – would we be able to try and convict such people under today’s system of secularism and moral relativism??

Why Vote “NO”?

• In respect of human rights, this repeal necessarily strips human rights from the unborn leaving them exposed to “lawful” killing. Apart from the unusual situation where we are subtracting a group from their human rights (because they are so defenceless) we are doing so in contravention of current human rights in Ireland, but also in the absence of any logical reason to do so as science demonstrates that life begins at conception. In effect, abortion discriminates against the unborn; what kind of equality is there in this?
• For Christians, this is an easy one. The unborn are human beings, so the fifth commandment applies: Thou shalt not kill. Indeed, it fails the golden rule “Do unto others what you would want done unto you”).
• For non Christians, abortion does not meet the silver rule criterion (“do no harm”) – principle of non maleficence, the principle of just law, the principle of universal personhood, and the principle of inalienable rights. Enough?
• For constitutionalists, those concerned about the law and governance, this amendment is a protective amendment, and this proposal represents the issuing of a blank cheque / assignment of power to politicians not only in respect of the unborn, but also potentially to other groups of human beings. Once they get that power, it will stay with them and will not return to the people. The politicians are not deserving of our trust in this respect, (are they moral people?) and as the cause of abortion is already high on their prioritised list of “power grabs”, they will extend it to please themselves and their perceived constituencies. Their words of restraint, such as they are, mean little and are soon forgotten by them, especially after election promises.In addition, politicians are only periodically accountable to the electorate by means of elections. Dail privilege is being increasingly abused without real sanctions. We need to exercise greater control over them, including by means of constitutional referenda.
• Are the risks associated with repeal not too great? If repealed, the unborn have absolutely no rights, no standing before the law, with less rights than, for example, animals? Is this not bizarre and totally unjust? Is a key purpose of the law not to deliver justice? Must the Unborn cry to God for justice?
• There is a great need to halt the advance of secularism. We are reaching a very difficult phase in our society, where morality and truth is being besieged on nearly all sides and the great humanising force of Christianity is being derided for its weakness. “Might is right” is moving forward as the law of the land. In addition, moving away from Christianity advances the self- destruction of our people in an ongoing way. We have to ensure in future that politicians serve the common good.
• Society needs to show some restraint in their appetites / inclination for an easy but ultimately damaging “solution” to difficult / unwanted pregnancies. Is it not time to stop demeaning ourselves with the “termination of pregnancy” (killing the unborn) mentality? Is this not a great example of that part of the Lord’s Prayer: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil”?
• What about our relationship with / our accountability to God?

Click to go to: Worldviews-on-Abortion
Click to go to: Politicians-and-the-Eight-Amendment
Click to go to: General-Considerations-regarding-Abortion
Click to go to: Video-Links-for-Eight-Amendment
Click to go to: General-Links-for-Eight-Amendment
Click to go to: Keep-the-Eight-Pro-Life
Click to go to: Home