Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C

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.

Halloween Jack

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.

Well, you’ve answered your own question there.

J C

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Well, you’ve answered your own question there.

Quite true.

The procured abortion issue is indeed simple and straightforward ... unlimited abortion allows the unwarranted killing of innocent Human Beings ... which is always morally and ethically wrong.
The fact that they are children ... and further, even more vulnerable unborn children, certainly dosn't makes it any less morally or ethically wrong.

Peregrinus

J C wrote: »

Quite true.

The procured abortion issue is indeed simple and straightforward ... unlimited abortion allows the unwarranted killing of innocent Human Beings ... which is always morally and ethically wrong.

But, even if so, it's not Christian teaching (and certainly not Catholic teaching) that the state should always criminalise that which is morally and ethically wrong.

Any vote we may have on this issue will not be about whether women should have abortions. It will be about whether, and in what way, and to what extent, the state should intervene to prevent women from having abortions.

Obviously, a Christian's views on that are going to be coloured by his views on the morality of abortion itself. (This is also true for a non-Christian, FWIW.) Nevertheless, that's not actually what he's voting about. He's voting about what action the state should or should not take.

Which means, I think, the relevant Christian teaching here is not really the teaching on the morality of abortion. It's Christian teaching on the proper role of the state, on its authority, on the limits to that authority, on the extentto which it's the business of the state to enforce moral behaviour, etc, etc.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, even if so, it's not Christian teaching (and certainly not Catholic teaching) that the state should always criminalise that which is morally and ethically wrong.

Any vote we may have on this issue will not be about whether women should have abortions. It will be about whether, and in what way, and to what extent, the state should intervene to prevent women from having abortions.

Obviously, a Christian's views on that are going to be coloured by his views on the morality of abortion itself. (This is also true for a non-Christian, FWIW.) Nevertheless, that's not actually what he's voting about. He's voting about what action the state should or should not take.

Which means, I think, the relevant Christian teaching here is not really the teaching on the morality of abortion. It's Christian teaching on the proper role of the state, on its authority, on the limits to that authority, on the extentto which it's the business of the state to enforce moral behaviour, etc, etc.

A fundamental responsibility of the state is to protect and defend the lives of all persons within its juristiction, to the maximum extent possible.

The introduction of unlimited abortion will completely negate that responsibility for a significant (and very vulnerable) cohort of unborn children.
Indeed, if it is passed, the state will find itself, not just 'turning a blind eye' to intentional killing ... but taking part directly in it itself, by funding many of the abortions with taxpayers money, in facilities directly owned and controlled by the state.

When it comes to the deliberate killing of people, there are no degrees to which the state normally abrogates its responsibility ... deliberate killing (other then in self defense or the defense of someone else, where no other option is available) is normally pursued and prosecuted to the maximum extent possible, by the state (and with no statute bar).
These are the well-tried and established principles, which should be used by voters to judge the extent to which it's the business of the state to enforce moral behaviour, when it comes to intentional killing within it's juristiction.

This is a very unique situation where what is being laid before the people is a choice between life and death for unborn children ... and the mark they make on their ballot paper, leads directly to one or the other.

There is going to be no room for equivocating here ... the choice is obvious ... and the moral responsibility flowing from it, equally so.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, a Christian's views on that are going to be coloured by his views on the morality of abortion itself. (This is also true for a non-Christian, FWIW.) Nevertheless, that's not actually what he's voting about. He's voting about what action the state should or should not take.

Out of curiosity and apologies for nitpicking, but any reason for picking male pronouns there? Reads rather poorly given the context.

MightyMandarin

I know it's in a christian forum and most churches tend to have teachings on the morality or immorality of abortion, but I fundamentally believe opinions on the matter can and should remain outside the confines of the Bible and other religious texts.

Opinions on the right to life are rooted in one's own moral code I think, and so I while I think discussion on the matter by churches is fine, I must say I really do hate it when they tell parishioners which way to vote (on any matter that is). It's a decision which should ultimately come down to the individual and what they think is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable in our society.

FWIW I consider myself a christian and believe the right to life of the unborn should be enshrined in the constitution, but I really do find it irritating when people (including relatives of mine) go on about why abortion is wrong simply because the bible says so. There should be more substantive reasons behind that imo.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

No

J C

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I know it's in a christian forum and most churches tend to have teachings on the morality or immorality of abortion, but I fundamentally believe opinions on the matter can and should remain outside the confines of the Bible and other religious texts.

The Bible is very clear that 'thou shall not kill' ... but so too is the law of every functioning state in the world.
Whether, you use the Bible or common sense, the moral imperative is to vindicte the right to life ... because no other right can be exercised in the absence of the right to life.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Opinions on the right to life are rooted in one's own moral code I think, and so I while I think discussion on the matter by churches is fine, I must say I really do hate it when they tell parishioners which way to vote (on any matter that is). It's a decision which should ultimately come down to the individual and what they think is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable in our society.

The right to life of others and oneself is normally accepted as an absolute non-negotiable right ... that can only be abrogated in very exceptional circumstances ... like self-defense or the defense of others, where no other option is available.
The days of Roman Catholic priests telling anyone what to do are long gone ... but this doesn't remove the moral responsibility from anybody, when they act on matters of life and death ... such as when they cast their vote in the upcoming abortion referendum.
Do we really want a society where the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

FWIW I consider myself a christian and believe the right to life of the unborn should be enshrined in the constitution, but I really do find it irritating when people (including relatives of mine) go on about why abortion is wrong simply because the bible says so. There should be more substantive reasons behind that imo.

There are obvious substantive reasons why 'thou shall not kill' is a critical principle for society to live by ... other than the fact that it is the Sixth Commanment of God (although that in itself should be very important for any Christian).
The most obvious (and selfish reason) is that I could be the next victim, in a society that doesn't enforce and criminally sanction the principle of 'thou shall not kill'.
... and you or I might never have been born, if our societies didn't protect the right to life of unborn children, at the time.
... so why should we metaphorically 'lift the drawbrdge' behind us now? ... and leave future generations of children to 'run the gauntlet' of being aborted, in a society that legally allows unlimited abortion?

kneemos

You're not terminating the foetus.
Surely it's the individual womans responsibility. Voting yes may allow abortion but would you be accountable for someone else's action?

Sesame

It's interesting as a non Christian to hear the Christian view on it.

To quote the poster above
"It's a decision which should ultimately come down to the individual and what they think is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable in our society."

I completely agree. Which is why I can't understand how a Christian viewpoint can say that but then be anti-choice at the same time.

If we are all individuals, and follow different moral and have different values, why can't a Christian say that they would never have an abortion and would dissuade their children from doing so, but their moral values shouldn't impact on the lives of strangers.

A good example is the same sex marriage referendum. It was voted for by Christians who presumably saw that the consequence of it would not negatively impact their lives or that of the greater society. It meant that certain citizens were given a choice which they previously didn't have. How is this any different?

In fact, the impact of a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy is far more harmful to society than allowing a woman to choose to end that pregnancy safely, with medical supervision and without delay in the confines of their home country.

endacl

A Christian who is registered to vote can vote any way they like on any issue.

Sleeper12

J C wrote:

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

That never stopped the Christian group the KKK from killing

kneemos

endacl wrote: »

A Christian who is registered to vote can vote any way they like on any issue.

They might say abortion and voting for it was morally incorrect.
The question I think being asked is would they face any consequences at the pearly gates if they voted yes and women were allowed have abortions. Would they be responsible for another person's actions?

J C

kneemos wrote: »

You're not terminating the foetus.
Surely it's the individual womans responsibility. Voting yes may allow abortion but would you be accountable for someone else's action?

If you vote to allow unlimited abortion ... by your voting decision, you directly share the moral responsibility for everything that can be reasonably predicted to flow from that decision.
It is reasonably predictable that unlimited abortion will flow from a vote to allow unlimited abortion.

There is no 'hiding place' here ... you cannot absolve your moral responsibility before God and Man ... by saying that somebody else, who availed of what your decision facilitated, bears all of the moral responsibility for their actions.

Indeed, the reverse could very well be true ... you making a cold clinical decision to allow unlimited abortion could bear far more moral responsibility for a particular abortion, than some vulnerable young woman who was pressurised into aborting by 'pushy' parents or other people ... simply because it was available as a direct result of your vote.

J C

Sesame wrote: »

It's interesting as a non Christian to hear the Christian view on it.

To quote the poster above
"It's a decision which should ultimately come down to the individual and what they think is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable in our society."

I completely agree. Which is why I can't understand how a Christian viewpoint can say that but then be anti-choice at the same time.

If we are all individuals, and follow different moral and have different values, why can't a Christian say that they would never have an abortion and would dissuade their children from doing so, but their moral values shouldn't impact on the lives of strangers.

A good example is the same sex marriage referendum. It was voted for by Christians who presumably saw that the consequence of it would not negatively impact their lives or that of the greater society. It meant that certain citizens were given a choice which they previously didn't have. How is this any different?

In fact, the impact of a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy is far more harmful to society than allowing a woman to choose to end that pregnancy safely, with medical supervision and without delay in the confines of their home country.

Abortion is very different to the Same Sex Marriage issue. Abortion is a matter of life and death.
Same Sex Marriage is allowing consenting same-sex couples to enter into state approved legally binding agreements on how they conduct their personal relationships ... in common with all other consenting mixed-sex couples ... it was a matter of equality ... and I (and most other Christians) have no issue with that.
The Same-sex marriage amendment conferred rights that other people already enjoyed on other people who didn't enjoy them ...
... the removal of the 8th Amendment will remove rights already conferred and enjoyed by unborn children ... it's actually something like trying to reverse the same-sex marriage amendment !!!

J C

endacl wrote: »

A Christian who is registered to vote can vote any way they like on any issue.

They can ... but where a vote they cast has serious predictable follow-on moral and ethical implications, they bear full moral rsponsibilty for those follow-on moral and ethical issues.

kneemos

J C wrote: »

If you vote to allow unlimited abortion ... by your voting decision, you directly share the moral responsibility for everything that can be reasonably predicted to flow from that decision.
It is reasonably predictable that unlimited abortion will flow from a vote to alow unlimited abortion.

There is no 'hiding place' here ... you cannot absolve your moral responsibility before God and Man ... by saying that somebody else, who availed of what your decision facilitated, bears all of the moral responsibility for their actions.

Indeed, the reverse could very well be true ... you making a cold clinical decision to allow unlimited abortion could bear far more moral responsibility for a particular abortion, than some vulnerable young woman who was pressurised into aborting by 'pushy' parents or other people.

Not an expert by any means,but not sure it's as clear cut as that.
Is every American for example responsible for dead Iraqi's for voting for Bush a second time?

Morally probably but are you committing a sin?

J C

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That never stopped the Christian group the KKK from killing

The KKK fail the very first test of a true Christian ... the imperative to love one's neighbour as oneself ... and I don't believe they honour God with all their heart either.
... so they aren't Christian in any meaningful sense of the word ... although they may claim to be part of 'Christianity' as a 'flag of convenience' ... when it suits them.

ted1

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.

Do you believe in Saria Law? Because your post implies that religous laws shout be national law.

Sesame

J C wrote: »

... you making a cold clinical decision to allow unlimited abortion could bear far more moral responsibility for a particular abortion, than some vulnerable young woman who was pressurised into aborting by 'pushy' parents or other people.

Really is that what the average Christian thinks, by them voting to retain the 8th,they are protecting vulnerable women from pushy parents?
That is very far removed from reality. Have you seen any of the committee meetings on this?

First of all, no one is forced into abortion. All patients would need to express permission on their own, without coercion,as happens in other countries.

What you are trying to do is enforce pregnancy in women that don't want to be pregnant. Or force women to illegally aquire drugs to end it. How is that Christian behavior?

The fact of the matter is abortion does. And always will exist. That vulnerable young woman that doesn't want to be a mother before her time will either obtain drugs behind her parents back or try to travel if she has the money, is that what a Christian would prefer?

I know that many Christians pick and choose which aspects of Christianity to take on as suits them. What about contraception? Is that still banned or have you gone along with family planning methods that contravene the Pope's word? If you don't mind breaking that rule, what about the morning after pill? Is that pushing things to far? The egg may have fertilised, did a baby die?
Christianity makes no sense to me quite a lot of the time. Particularly when I hear of the church treasurers stealing money, or good Christian men surfing on porn sites. Is bring a Christian just a case of trying to impose moral views on others while living any kind of life you like.

If that's the case, and God forgives all, why not vote to allow choice and then to be sure your OK, go to confession straight after to wipe the slate clean.

Sorry for waffling on, but the more I think about being a good Christian and people I know like that, the more confused I am. Can't we all just try to be good people and not harm others (living people or animals) or society, without trying to set these rules that can be circumvented or forgiven.

Cabaal

endacl wrote: »

A Christian who is registered to vote can vote any way they like on any issue.

Fully agree,
However that won't stop many saying how those people are then not actually "proper" christians, whatever that is supposed to mean.

I guess that makes the majority of Ireland not christian because the country has voted against christian stuff countless times

Bubbaclaus

The Bible itself says that the foetus only becomes alive during its first breath, and not at conception. So not considered a living human until born.

So the 6th commandment only applies if we are talking of killing newborns, which clearly isn't the case.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

If you vote to allow unlimited abortion ... by your voting decision, you directly share the moral responsibility for everything that can be reasonably predicted to flow from that decision.
It is reasonably predictable that unlimited abortion will flow from a vote to alow unlimited abortion.

There is no 'hiding place' here ... you cannot absolve your moral responsibility before God and Man ... by saying that somebody else, who availed of what your decision facilitated, bears all of the moral responsibility for their actions.

Indeed, the reverse could very well be true ... you making a cold clinical decision to allow unlimited abortion could bear far more moral responsibility for a particular abortion, than some vulnerable young woman who was pressurised into aborting by 'pushy' parents or other people ... simply because it was available as a direct result of your vote.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "unlimited abortion"?

J C

kneemos wrote: »

Not an expert by any means,but not sure it's as clear cut as that.
Is every American for example responsible for dead Iraqi's for voting for Bush a second time?

Morally probably but are you committing a sin?

Voting for this or that politician is different ... as they may do anything (or nothing) when they get into power.
Obviously, if somebody said that they were going to engage in civilian genocide ... and you voted for him/her ... you would bear joint moral responsiblity for their prosecution of such genocide when elected ... and it would be deeply sinful for you (as well as a war crime for the person who did it) IMO.

In the case of Bush, he always claimed to be targetting Iraqi military targets and civilian casualties were collateral ... and if you had voted for the Democrat alternative, they were also promising to continue the Iraqi war ... with the possibility of civilian casualties as well.

Referenda are very different ... here you have a direct choice on a specific issue ... you vote one way you get a clear and predictable result ... and if you vote the other way, you get an equally clear and opposite result.

smacl

J C wrote: »

There is no 'hiding place' here ... you cannot absolve your moral responsibility before God and Man ... by saying that somebody else, who availed of what your decision facilitated, bears all of the moral responsibility for their actions.

So when a woman dies because she was not given timely access to an abortion, as was the case with Savita Halappanavar, do you bear moral responsibility for that death?

J C

ted1 wrote: »

Do you believe in Saria Law? Because your post implies that religous laws shout be national law.

I don't believe in Sharia Law ... and I don't believe that religious law should be national law.

I merely cite the Sixth Commandment that 'thou shall not kill' as an elegant and simple statement of common sense behaviour ... that every functioning state tries to support and achieve to the maximum extent possible ... through their laws against the intentional killing of innocent people.

kneemos

J C wrote: »

Voting for this or that politician is different ... as they may do anything (or nothing) when they get into power.
Obviously, if somebody said that they were going to engage in civilian genocide ... and you voted for him/her ... you would bear joint moral responsiblity for their prosecution of such genocide when elected ... and it would be deeply sinful for you (as well as a war crime for the person who did it) IMO.

In the case of Bush, he always claimed to be targetting Iraqi military targets and civilian casualties were collateral ... and if you had voted for the Democrat alternative, they were also promising to continue the Iraqi war ... with the possibility of civilian casualties as well.

Referenda are very different ... here you have a direct choice on a specific issue ... you vote one way you get a clear and predictable result ... and if you vote the other way, you get an equally clear and opposite result.

I don't know if any women will have an abortion that wouldn't have had one anyway by that logic.
As a previous poster said if I vote no and some women die as a result am I also responsible?

J C

smacl wrote: »

So when a woman dies because she was not given timely access to an abortion, as was the case with Savita Halappanavar, do you bear moral responsibility for that death?

The existing provisions in the Constitution allows medical intervention where a womans life is at risk ... and this has now been codified into law under The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.
Savita Halappanavar's death was indeed very tragic ... but I am not prepared to comment on any specifics in relation to it ... other than to say that the establishment of unlimited abortion in this country, isn't required to prevent similar deaths occurring in the future.

J C

kneemos wrote: »

I don't know if any women will have an abortion that wouldn't have had one anyway by that logic.

It is quite clear that if unlimited abortion becomes available that some people will naturally avail of it ... and if you have voted for it you share joint moral responsibility for all such abortions.

kneemos wrote: »

As a previous poster said if I vote no and some women die as a result am I also responsible?

If you voted no ... and it was directly predictable that some woman would die, directly as a result, you would bear the moral responsibility. For example, if the existing provision didn't give any weight to the life of the mother, you would be morally responsible for retaining such an obviously dangerous legal situation.

However, this is not the case ... but unlimited abortions will directly result if you vote yes.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "unlimited abortion"?

I'm just reading the newspapers, like everybody else.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkars-concern-over-11831044

In any event, the removal of the 8th Amendment opens the door to unlimited abortion ... whether that comes immediately or later, seems to be the only issue currently under discussuion.

J C

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The Bible itself says that the foetus only becomes alive during its first breath, and not at conception. So not considered a living human until born.

So the 6th commandment only applies if we are talking of killing newborns, which clearly isn't the case.

Both Science and God say that a Human life begins at conception.
https://www.gotquestions.org/life-begin-conception.html
Quote:-
"Science tells us that human life begins at the time of conception. From the moment fertilization takes place, the child's genetic makeup is already complete. Its gender has already been determined, along with its height and hair, eye and skin color. The only thing the embryo needs to become a fully-functioning being is the time to grow and develop.

More importantly, God reveals to us in His Word that not only does life begin at conception, but He knows who we are even before then (Jeremiah 1:5). King David said this about God's role in our conception: "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb . . . your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13, 16)."

Cabaal

Thats great and all JC but imagine for a second that somebody or their religion starts lobbying in relation to their belief that masturbation for men is an awful crime and unless a man is actually having unprotected sex then they should be charged with wasting life and the potential to create life. After all science confirms sperm is alive and the bible says masturbation is wrong.

Would you be for perhaps a 1k fine for every time a man masturbates and wastes his sperm? Maybe 1 month in jail?
That should stop men and teenagers wasting life on needless impure pleasure

kneemos

J C wrote: »

It is quite clear that if unlimited abortion becomes available that some people will naturally avail of it ... and if you have voted for it you share joint moral responsibility for all such abortions.

If you voted no ... and it was directly predictable that some woman would die, directly as a result, you would bear the moral responsibility. For example, if the existing provision didn't give any weight to the life of the mother, you would be morally responsible for retaining such an obviously dangerous legal situation.

However, this is not the case ... but unlimited abortions will directly result if you vote yes.

Wasn't really arguing the toss about the morals of the thing,probably agree it would be morally wrong to vote yes.
Is it a sin to do so is what I was curious about. Or rather would we be guilty of a sin for any subsequent abortions?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I don't believe in Sharia Law ... and I don't believe that religious law should be national law.

I merely cite the Sixth Commandment that 'thou shall not kill' as an elegant and simple statement of common sense behaviour ... that every functioning state tries to support and achieve to the maximum extent possible ... through their laws against intentional killing.

The death penalty negates that arguement

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I'm just reading the newspapers, like everybody else.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkars-concern-over-11831044

In any event, the removal of the 8th Amendment opens the door to unlimited abortion ... whether that comes immediately or later, seems to be the only issue currently under discussuion.

I still don't understand what you (or that rag) means by "unlimited abortion"

Sleeper12

Are Christians wrong to fight in war?

Huntergonzo

The sixth commandment my forbid killing but then again God doesn't really have an issue with murder as seen in Exodus 12:29 -

"At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well."

Sesame

J.C, when you said "... it was a matter of equality ... and I (and most other Christians) have no issue with that."

Does equality apply to bodily integrity?

As in, can men and women really be equal if men can control what happens with their bodies but women cannot?

And for anyone that doubt that that is the case, imagine you are a woman and you know that you are miscarrying and you feel ill, sepsis is setting in. There are drugs that can be provided in a hospital setting to speed up the expelling of the foetus but as a heartbeat is still present, the drugs cannot be issued. All the medical staff know you are miscarrying, the scans don't lie. But because of the 8th amendment, you can't ask the medical staff to provide this care. all they can do is wait for the heartbeat to naturally end.

Another example of the 8th amendment in action. You buy medicine online which is recommended by friends to end an unwanted preganacy in the first two months you are aware of the pregnancy (4 to 12 weeks). Pharmacists and GPS cannot even provide you with the details of a safe website to buy these. You have to find it yourself. If the medical staff do, they could face prosection. You google it and hope the answers are a legitimate site.

Or you are over 12 weeks and you face risks as these drugs are not licences for later pregnancies. But the alternative of travelling for a surgical abortion are prohibitive.

A Christian may have views on all sorts of aspects of morality and what is the right thing to do. None of those examples above are the right thing to do. You may follow the word of the bible but in the cases of these laws and what you feel is right and wrong, follow your own instinct. You have your own live experience and knowledge of the world to know what is right. Trust your own morals and vote with your own mind.

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

Thats great and all JC but imagine for a second that somebody or their religion starts lobbying in relation to their belief that masturbation for men is an awful crime and unless a man is actually having unprotected sex then they should be charged with wasting life and the potential to create life. After all science confirms sperm is alive and the bible says masturbation is wrong.

Would you be for perhaps a 1k fine for every time a man masturbates and wastes his sperm? Maybe 1 month in jail?
That should stop men and teenagers wasting life on needless impure pleasure

There is a fundamental difference between killing an unborn child and masturbating / using contraception.
An unborn child will be born and grow to adulthood, if it isn't intentionally killed ... exactly like a born child will do.
Sperm doesn't have that potential.

Masturbation is normally a private act, which the state has no hand, act or part in ... but if masturbation were to be engaged in, in public ... and thereby brought to the attention of the state ... the state would indeed prosecute for indecency. The moral (and legal) issue with masturbation is primariliy indecency.
The moral (and legal) issue with procured abortion is intentional killing.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The death penalty negates that arguement

The death penalty is indeed morally dubious as well.
The death penalty is the state acquiring to itself the right to deliberately kill someone, all be it for some henious crime (in most cases).
Happily, most states have abolished the death penalty ... ironically, around the same time that they intoduced another form of death penalty, as state-sanctioned abortions ... for the most innocent of persons ... the unborn child.

Sesame

"Masturbation is normally a private act, which the state has no hand, act or part in"

Funnily enough I believe that about pregnancy.
Pregnancy is a private act, which the state has no hand, act or part in.


Why do you think that when woman gets pregnant, it becomes a public issue that the state needs to become part of?

And when you say "An unborn child will be born and grow to adulthood, if it isn't intentionally killed ... exactly like a born child will do.
Sperm doesn't have that potential. "

I believe that about a pregnancy. It has the POTENTIAL to become a child. Its a very long 9 months before that happens though. It has potential, yes, but its not a child, has no legal definition of being a child. You can't claim child benefit for a pregnancy, you can't murder a foetus, its just a clump of cells with potential to develop over those 9 months.

And its not that different for the sperm and egg. Are you saying separately, they are worthless, but suddenly they fuse and everything changes? The soul appears? Its not like that and I think every sane person, Christian or not, knows that too.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I still don't understand what you (or that rag) means by "unlimited abortion"

Please don't start blaming the messenger ...
Quote:-
"Leo Varadkar has expressed concern about proposals to allow unlimited abortions up to 12 weeks, saying that people have legitimate opinions that this stance may be too liberal.

He said: “It’s fair to say that for a lot of people in the country the proposal to allow for the termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks went further than many people would have anticipated.”


The Taoiseach was speaking after the Cabinet held a two hour discussion on the recommendations of the Oireachtas special committee on the Eighth Amendment.

Among the committee’s recommendations was one to allow women to decide if they wanted abortions, without restriction, up to 12 weeks into their pregnancy."

Water John

Been following these discussions for a while. Helping to clarify my own thinking.

If A human being is complete on fertilisation, then should not a priest be called to baptise the baby, when a woman has a miscarriage?
If the Catholic church don't offer this, then they are of a view that the early foetus is different from a foetus later in pregnancy.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Please don't start blaming the messenger ...
Quote:-
"Leo Varadkar has expressed concern about proposals to allow unlimited abortions up to 12 weeks, saying that people have legitimate opinions that this stance may be too liberal.

He said: “It’s fair to say that for a lot of people in the country the proposal to allow for the termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks went further than many people would have anticipated.”


The Taoiseach was speaking after the Cabinet held a two hour discussion on the recommendations of the Oireachtas special committee on the Eighth Amendment.

Among the committee’s recommendations was one to allow women to decide if they wanted abortions, without restriction, up to 12 weeks into their pregnancy."

So you also have no idea what "unlimited abortion " means but you like the sound of it?

J C

Sesame wrote: »

"Masturbation is normally a private act, which the state has no hand, act or part in"

Funnily enough I believe that about pregnancy.
Pregnancy is a private act, which the state has no hand, act or part in.

... and if you mean unprotected sexual intercourse between consenting adults, that leads to pregnancy, you'd be correct that the state has (and should have) no hand, act ot part in it.
... although China and it's one-child policy would disagree.

Sesame wrote: »

Why do you think that when woman gets pregnant, it becomes a public issue that the state needs to become part of?

The state doesn't need to get involved, just like it doesn't need to get involved, when the child is born ... unless she is a threat to the life or welfare of the child.
With state-sanctioned abortion, this is 'turned on its head' ... and the state actively participates with the woman in the killing of her unborn child.

Sesame wrote: »

And when you say "An unborn child will be born and grow to adulthood, if it isn't intentionally killed ... exactly like a born child will do.
Sperm doesn't have that potential. "

I believe that about a pregnancy. It has the POTENTIAL to become a child. Its a very long 9 months before that happens though. It has potential, yes, but its not a child, has no legal definition of being a child. You can't claim child benefit for a pregnancy, you can't murder a foetus, its just a clump of cells with potential to develop over those 9 months.

We're all just 'clumps of cells' with the potential to live varying amounts of time ... it's when somebody takes it upon themselves to cut short that potential ... by intentionally killling us that society (rightly) takes an interest ... and society takes is so seriously that it usually incarcerates such a person for life.

Sesame wrote: »

And its not that different for the sperm and egg. Are you saying separately, they are worthless, but suddenly they fuse and everything changes? The soul appears? Its not like that and I think every sane person, Christian or not, knows that too.

Everything does change when the sperm and egg fuse ... a new unique Human Being (with the potential to live a full life) is formed.
This is recognised in law, for example 'en ventre sa mere' children have full inheritance rights.
Someone's eggs or sperm don't have any inheritance rights ... otherwise, I'd be financially ruined !!!:)

... with billions of claimants on my estate ... to say nothing about the college fees!!!:D

Sesame

Water John wrote: »

Been following these discussions for a while. Helping to clarify my own thinking.

If A human being is complete on fertilisation, then should not a priest be called to baptise the baby, when a woman has a miscarriage?
If the Catholic church don't offer this, then they are of a view that the early foetus is different from a foetus later in pregnancy.

Good point. So if it's not legally a baby and not spiritually a baby and not medically a baby then what is left to convince us that it is?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you also have no idea what "unlimited abortion " means but you like the sound of it?

I think that "Among the committee’s recommendations was one to allow women to decide if they wanted abortions, without restriction, up to 12 weeks into their pregnancy." ... is pretty self-explanatory.
Whether its 'without restriction' ... or 'unlimited' seems to add up to pretty much the same thing !!!

Sleeper12

Sesame wrote:

Good point. So if it's not legally a baby and not spiritually a baby and not medically a baby then what is left to convince us that it is?

Faith?

Water John

I am genuinely trying to tease it out. As a farmer, even hate aborting animals.
But everyones position must be logical and true.
Also the catholic church's stand on contraception. Basically, any physical barrier to prevent sperm and egg saying hello to each other, is morally wrong.
This is patently about trying to prevent sexual activity, outside of marriage and little to do with contraception.
I know certainly there are Biblical and earlier church references to a certain time in pregnancy, when the foetus might be considered a baby.

J C

Sesame wrote: »

Good point. So if it's not legally a baby and not spiritually a baby and not medically a baby then what is left to convince us that it is?

It isn't a baby ... and nobody is arguing that it is.
It is legally an unborn child ... with the same inheritance rights in law as any born child.
It is medically at the germinal / embryonic / fetal stage of development on the clearly defined path between fertilisation and adulthood ... that it will follow, if it isn't intentionally killed!!

... and what that RCC considers it to be spiritually is of no particular concern to me.

I myself, believe it to be spiritually ensoled from the moment of it's conception.