Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Options
1…34689…174

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,410 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    We are not our neighbour's keeper ... so on an individual level, we shouldn't take the law into our own hands and become some kind of vigilantes ... the law is there and the organs of state are there to enforce it.
    On a state level, we are not our neighbour's keeper either ... and if somebody travels to avail of something that is legal in another juristiction then we cannot and should not stop them doing so.
    However, just because somebody wants to avail of something that is legal in another state, dosn't mean that we also have to make it legal in our state, if we are opposed to it for very good reasons.
    That's one of the reasons why states have diiferent laws ... reflective of the ethos and mores of their respective societies values.
    Even within the one state (the UK) there are very diiferent laws on abortion within each separate legal jusristiction ... for example, in Northern Ireland the law is very similar to our current legal position in the ROI - and very different to the rest of the UK.

    So what are those good reasons and why don't they apply to other states, especially other European countries?


  • Options
    #153
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,238 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, Old Testament times were very rough indeed ... most likely due to the absence of the Holy Spirit from the world ... and it was a 'dog eat dog' ... 'eye for an eye' kind of place ... a hell on earth, if you will ... and it was into that environment that the Mosaic Laws were formulated by Moses.
    They were desperate laws ... for a desperate situation.
    Jesus Christ came to save the world from such hardness of heart (and law) ... and He proved that the Law on stoning for adultery, for example, wasn't a law of God ... but a man-made addition to the Seventh Commandment ... when He forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go away and sin no more.

    The only Laws directly given to Mankind by God, in perpetuity, are the 10 Commandments ... and they are the principles by which everyone should live ... if we are to have happy, just and peaceful lives.
    So all those times in the bible where 'the lord said to' is written don't count?

    Moses 'formulated' the laws based on direct instructions from god, like when he commanded that every single one of the Amalekites, man woman and child (and ox etc) be killed without mercy.

    It is utterly ludicrous that an omnipotent and omniscient god had no choice but to order genocide because 'old testament times were rough indeed'

    Instead of 'Hardening the heart' of the Pharaoh so that he could continue to unleash his mad plagues on the innocent people of egypt, he could have softened mans hearts to allow them to see the humanity in each other and avoid the thousands of years of brutality and bloodshed that continued long after Jesus and 'the holy spirit' apparently rescued is from such 'rough' times.


  • Options
    #154
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    They couldn't act if Mary was euthanising herself, but they could if she was involved in the euthanisation of someone else.

    I think the latter is a better example anyway, because from the point of view of those opposed to abortion, both actions involve one person being involved in the ending of the life of a second.

    Yet, while our laws have harsh penalties for those who assist in euthanasia (up to 14 years in prison), those who arrange abortions overseas not only face no penalties, it is constitutionally impossible to apply penalties.
    The appropriate section of law is as follows:-

    "A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."
    This is Section 2 of the 1993, the Criminal Law (Suicide) Act. It's intent is clearly to prevent other people assisting people with suicide ideation going through with their suicide in Ireland ... and absolutely right too.
    It also bans assisted euthanasia in Ireland - and I agree with that too.

    The only trial for somebody charged with assisting somebody to travel for euthanasia resulted in the aquittal of the accused ... so I think that the settled law on this is that people have a right to travel to have themselves or their unborn children killed ... a very sad state of affairs for those involved, no doubt ... but the freedom to travel is something that I support ... even though I may not support everything people do, when they travel.


  • Options
    #155
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Akrasia wrote: »
    So all those times in the bible where 'the lord said to' is written don't count?

    Moses 'formulated' the laws based on direct instructions from god, like when he commanded that every single one of the Amalekites, man woman and child (and ox etc) be killed without mercy.

    It is utterly ludicrous that an omnipotent and omniscient god had no choice but to order genocide because 'old testament times were rough indeed'

    Instead of 'Hardening the heart' of the Pharaoh so that he could continue to unleash his mad plagues on the innocent people of egypt, he could have softened mans hearts to allow them to see the humanity in each other and avoid the thousands of years of brutality and bloodshed that continued long after Jesus and 'the holy spirit' apparently rescued is from such 'rough' times.
    God cannot harden or soften our hearts ... as free-willed beings we are sovereign in the matter of the state of our hearts.
    ... and yes, terrible atrocities are still committed ... but the World is certainly a much more humane place with the 'leaven' and love of Christianity within it.


  • Options
    #156
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,019 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »
    Not at all. As a Christian you must obey His Commands.

    So a real Christian has to vote for a theocracy?
    No divorce, either of course, and no contraception? Oh and no SSM!

    And why was it ok to vote for travel for abortion to be allowed, or are all those people going to hell?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    Not detained but stopped http://www.thejournal.ie/assisted-suicide-a-crime-if-suicide-isnt-2073607-Apr2015/
    How does this show that somebody can't travel for Euthanasia to another juristiction?


  • Options
    #158
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So a real Christian has to vote for a theocracy?
    No divorce, either of course, and no contraception? Oh and no SSM!

    And why was it ok to vote for travel for abortion to be allowed, or are all those people going to hell?
    On matters of life and death people are ultimately informed by their God-given conscience, whether they are Christian or not ... they instinctively know right from wrong ... and if they choose wrong ... it will haunt them for the rest of their lives ... even if God has forgiven them after they have repented.
    They may try to deny and suppress their conscience ... but it will keep 'pricking' them ... often when they least expect.
    Whilst God may forgive us for any harm we may cause others ... we often find it most difficult to forgive ourselves ... and of course, any harm done can't be undone.


  • Options
    #159
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,410 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    How does this show that somebody can't travel for Euthanasia to another juristiction?

    Where Was this stated by Cabaal?

    By comparison, if somebody reported to the gardai that Mary was traveling to euthanize herself, they will act.

    Ofc they can travel, but will be stopped when it gets reported.


  • Options
    #160
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    J C wrote: »
    The appropriate section of law is as follows:-

    "A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years."
    This is a retained section from The Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1871. It's intent is clearly to prevent other people assisting people with suicide ideation going through with their suicide in Ireland ... and absolutely right too.

    This is not retained from the 1871 Act. The 1871 Act makes no reference to aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the suicide of another. It only refers to persons who "attempted to commit suicide". The 1993 Act repealed that provision, thereby decriminalising people who attempt suicide, but for the first time making it an offence to assist someone else in their suicide.
    J C wrote: »
    The only trial for somebody charged with assisting somebody to travel for euthanasia resulted in the aquittal of the accused ... so I think that the settled law on this is that people have a right to travel to have themselves or their unborn children killed ... a very sad state of affairs for those involved, no doubt ... but the freedom to travel is something that I support ... even though I may not support everything people do, when they travel.

    It is absolutely not "settled law". The jury in her case found her not guilty. A jury's decision is considered a finding of fact, based on the evidence presented, not a finding of law. The results of this case doesn't mean someone else can't be charged or convicted.


  • Options
    #161
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    So what are those good reasons and why don't they apply to other states, especially other European countries?
    There are obvious and very good reasons for not killing your child (born or unborn) ... and it could only be morally contemplated in situations of extremis such as where a mothers life is at risk from the child she is carrying.
    What other countries (and people) do is their own business ... but if I'm being asked to put my name and vote to approve unlimited abortion, I most definitely won't do it.
    I simply couldn't live with myself after doing such a thing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    This is not retained from the 1871 Act. The 1871 Act makes no reference to aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring the suicide of another. It only refers to persons who "attempted to commit suicide". The 1993 Act repealed that provision, thereby decriminalising people who attempt suicide, but for the first time making it an offence to assist someone else in their suicide.
    Point taken ... either way it's a good law and I support it.
    NuMarvel wrote: »
    It is absolutely not "settled law". The jury in her case found her not guilty. A jury's decision is considered a finding of fact, based on the evidence presented, not a finding of law. The results of this case doesn't mean someone else can't be charged or convicted.
    A precedent has been set by this case, that the DPP will take account of in future cases ... and if it need to be clarified further, I'm sure that this will be done.


  • Options
    #163
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

    I can't really see how tbh. When it comes to voting, a party's/individual's stance on these issues is one of the top things I consider.


  • Options
    #164
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    J C wrote: »
    A precedent has been set by this case, that the DPP will take account of in future cases ... and if it need to be clarified further, I'm sure that this will be done.

    No legal precedent has been set. Her acquittal was because of the jury decision and no other reason. And I certainly hope you're not suggesting that a jury finding someone not guilty of a crime means no one can ever again be charged or convicted of that crime.

    What the DPP does in the future will be based on practical issues, eg the weight of evidence, and not legal ones. They certainly won't be thinking it's now "settled law" that the right to travel overrides the provisions of the law, because that's plainly not the case.


  • Options
    #165
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,019 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    J C wrote: »
    On matters of life and death people are ultimately informed by their God-given conscience, whether they are Christian or not ... they instinctively know right from wrong ... and if they choose wrong ... it will haunt them for the rest of their lives ... even if God has forgiven them after they have repented.
    They may try to deny and suppress their conscience ... but it will keep 'pricking' them ... often when they least expect.
    Whilst God may forgive us for any harm we may cause others ... we often find it most difficult to forgive ourselves ... and of course, any harm done can't be undone.

    I don't see how this explains why you think Christians are morally obliged to remove other people's free will to make those choices in the case of abortion within the territory of Ireland only.

    You feel there is no such obligation to vote to stop people travelling for abortion, but you support (if I've understood you right) the law which stops people from travelling to assist others commit suicide.

    All seems to be a completely random interpretation of fairly randomly selected biblical texts, TBH.


  • Options
    #166
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Akrasia wrote: »
    The priest....

    God. God is entitled to set the t&c's for everyone's life.



    In fact, the fact that in this example, god is the authority acting on either killing or preserving the foetus, why is that different to any other abortion, humans can give each other any kind of abortion pills we like, but doesn't god then decide whether to allow them to work?

    God permits our exercise of will. Even if sinfully

    So life begins before conception then. great. So the RCC was right, contraception should be illegal and masturbation should be a capital offense as it deprives some of the 'people' that god knows but won't get a chance to be even conceived because of fleshlights and condoms.

    I don't see anything in the verse about a personhood being associated with sperm. The person is associated with the foetus however and so my cue from that point. Take up your objection on sperm with someone who holds that view perhaps?


  • Options
    #167
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,238 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    J C wrote: »
    God cannot harden or soften our hearts ... as free-willed beings we are sovereign in the matter of the state of our hearts.
    ... and yes, terrible atrocities are still committed ... but the World is certainly a much more humane place with the 'leaven' and love of Christianity within it.

    Tell that to the book of exodus.


  • Options
    #168
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,238 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God. God is entitled to set the t&c's for everyone's life.






    God permits our exercise of will. Even if sinfully




    I don't see anything in the verse about a personhood being associated with sperm. The person is associated with the foetus however and so my cue from that point. Take up your objection on sperm with someone who holds that view perhaps?
    you said yourself that the person exists before conception because god 'knows' them. so if the person exists before conception, than any act that prevents conception is just as harmful to that person than anything that happens between conception and the delivery of a baby.


  • Options
    #169
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,019 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Akrasia wrote: »
    you said yourself that the person exists before conception because god 'knows' them. so if the person exists before conception, than any act that prevents conception is just as harmful to that person than anything that happens between conception and the delivery of a baby.

    I think that was traditionally one of the religious objections to artificial contraception, and the reason why "natural" family planning was deemed to be acceptable.

    So yes, by that logic contraception is little different from abortion, but expect a bit more cherry picking from the various scriptures to land miraculously on whatever answer the poster wanted. :)


  • Options
    #170
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »
    Not at all. As a Christian you must obey His Commands.

    God gave free will,
    people can do what they want,

    62% of this country voted for marriage equality, those fine people exercised free will and granted their fellow men and women equal rights.


  • Options
    #171
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,463 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Harika wrote: »
    Where Was this stated by Cabaal?
    .

    It wasnt, JC making up stuff again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    No divorce, no contraception, no ssm, no abortion.


  • Options
    #173
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    Cabaal wrote: »
    God gave free will,
    people can do what they want,

    62% of this country voted for marriage equality, those fine people exercised free will and granted their fellow men and women equal rights.

    Do you consider the 38% who voted against, and the ~35% of the electorate who didn't vote, "unfine" people?


  • Options
    #174
    EirWatchr
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭EirWatchr


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    While I can understand that abortion would be considered more serious than the issues above, if the criteria is that Catholics are obliged to do all that they can, then there's obviously much more they should be doing, but that they don't.

    I agree entirely; now is the time for Catholics to do so, and not to be further seduced by the preponderances of excuses of "it's happening anyway/elsewhere" or "it's another's responsibility/choice/blame."

    Archbishop Eamon Martin has recently said as much.


  • Options
    #175
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    Also drunkards, liars, sorcerers, etc. You know the list.


  • Options
    #176
    EirWatchr
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭EirWatchr


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Who are you, a non deity, to presume what Jesus believed without having something he said to refer to?

    Well, if you want go that route, none of us were there in person to hear any of what Jesus said, so at least some degree of presumption exists in any Christian following Christ. The apostles were there to hear *all* he said and did, and in the words and language he said it. John 21:25

    The tradition & scripture v. sola-scriptura debate (and which texts of church fathers with references to abortion or any other matter are valid) is an old, long, and off-topic one for another thread.

    If Jesus wanted to preserve unborn life, he should have said something about it.

    and is it not presumptious of a non-deity to dictate terms and conditions about how God *should* have done things?


  • Options
    #177
    EirWatchr
    Registered Users Posts: 119 ✭✭EirWatchr


    c_man wrote: »
    Do you consider the 38% who voted against, and the ~35% who didn't vote, "unfine" people?

    And also, will the same people who voted for equal rights be equally fine if they then turn and vote to remove a statement of equal rights from the constitution - i.e. the eighth ammendment.


  • Options
    #178
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,409 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »
    No divorce, no contraception, no ssm, no abortion.

    And yet we have 3 and soon to be the full house


  • Options
    #179
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    Where Was this stated by Cabaal?

    Ofc they can travel, but will be stopped when it gets reported.
    I asked if anyone was stopped ... and all I heard was what some guard told somebody that they couldn't travel!!

    ... and if the right to travel was abrogated ... I'm sure that enabling legislation would be passed.


  • Options
    #180
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    EirWatchr wrote: »
    And also, will the same people who voted for equal rights be equally fine if they then turn and vote to remove a statement of equal rights from the constitution - i.e. the eighth ammendment.
    Yes, that is the irony here ... the pseudo-liberals are citing the passing of legislation to produce equality (SSM) ... as a reason for repealing legislation to remove equality (between a mother and her child).

    They are obviously liberal ... and equality-minded ... when it suits them ... and not so much, when it doesn't suit them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Akrasia wrote: »
    you said yourself that the person exists before conception because god 'knows' them. so if the person exists before conception, than any act that prevents conception is just as harmful to that person than anything that happens between conception and the delivery of a baby.

    Your making a leap here. You are supposing that God has destined a particular sperm and egg to act as a bodily vehicle for the person he knows before he knit them together in their mothers womb.

    I don't know where you got that idea from but it certainly isn't, as far as I know, in the Bible.

    The thread asks the question it asks. There is a biblical basis for supposing man-led abortion contra God's order. Thus I'd be contra abortion.

    There is no need for me to deal with speculatives


Advertisement