Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

54and56

J C wrote: »

Says the guy who posted this piece of wisdom ... presumably believing it to be some kind of contribution to the debate!!

Don't be lazy, attack or challenge the post, not the poster.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

A foetus is truthfully and legally a person in Ireland at present ...

The Supreme Court is due to hear a case about this next month, but I guess we can tell them not to bother, because Judge JC has already decided. :rolleyes:

A foetus is not legally a person. If it were, then every pregnant women would be able to claim child benefit. Every miscarriage would have to have a death certificate issued. The act of an illegal abortion would have to be regarded as a homicide and have penalties of up to life imprisonment. So, no, a foetus is not legally a person.

In future, please do some proper research before making wild claims about what the law says, because it's doing your argument absolutely no favours.

J C wrote: »

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.
... and they are legally persons in this country, unless and until this status is stripped away from them by the removal of the 8th.

See above.

54and56

J C wrote: »

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

I think what you are saying is completely wrong. But I can't change your mind, if the above is what you believe.

J C

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm finding this talk of unrestricted access to abortion hilarious.

We already have unrestricted access to hip-replacements and to cosmetic surgery.

That doesn't mean everyone who wants one will get one. In some cases, the doctor will say "sorry, there would be no clinical benefit for you in having a XYZ procedure". In others, the wait to see a consultant - yes even in the private sector - is so long that treatment availability is very limited, even though it's legal.

Even if the 8th is repealed, I predict that access to induced abortion will be far more limited than anyone expects.


FWIW, I will be voting for repeal, based on minimising harm and having no real effect on the rate of induced abortions being done to Irish women: all it will change is the place they happen in.

The difference is that you will be personally approving all abortions that occur following the repeal of the 8th.

At present, you bear no moral responsibility for what other people are doing.

If you are happy that abortions are morally correct, (for the reasons you cite) then you should have no issues with this.

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

A child is a child of a parent, whatever age (or stage of development) the child may be.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

J C wrote: »

...There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity ...

None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.


... so I fully understand the issues that can arise...

... and the 8th amendment is a civil law ... that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil...

You see JC, I don't react well to somebody shouting at me. It never implies reasoned debate.

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Don't be lazy, attack or challenge the post, not the poster.

I was attacking one of your posts, by contrasting it with another one of your posts.

Nothing personal in it at all.:)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

And my God said "Love your enemies"

J C

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

You see JC, I don't react well to somebody shouting at me. It never implies reasoned debate.

I never shouted at you or anybody else.

Shouting is using CAPITAL LETTERS ... embolding text is used for clarity and emphasis.

J C

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

And my God said "Love your enemies"

Amen to that.

... and do good to those who hate you ... Amen to that as well.
... but this doesn't meant that you have to agree with them!!!:D

... and honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul ... Amen to that as well.

You're a good guy Lisa Billions Gum.:)

... and as you are a Christian, we both have the same God.

... so we're not as different as you may think.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Lisa Billions Gum wrote:

And my God said "Love your enemies"

How could God's enemy, ie. satan and his cohorts, enter the Kingdom of God?

54and56

J C wrote: »

A child is a child of a parent, whatever age (or stage of development) the child may be.

Nope, that's why a foetus is called a fetus and not a child and why the birth cert records the date of birth and not the date of conception.

The emotional language you use doesn't (thankfully) change the facts.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Nobody is asking for a country ruled by Biblical Law.

There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity why we shouldn't countenance the intentional killing of unborn children except in very exceptional circumstances ... and all of these issues have been freely and civilly debated on this thread.
None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

If you look at the number of posters that seem to be 'yes' and 'no' I'd say they are pretty balanced in number and debating ability ... and the thread, despite being focussed on the Christian dimension to abortion (it is on a Christianity forum after all) has encompassed all views right across the spectrum including the legal and the philosophical and irreligious viewpoints, as well.

I am an ordinary Christian man, so I fully understand the issues that can arise, where abortion may seem the solution ... but for all of the reasons debated on this thread I don't think that it can be justified except in exceptional situations.

I fully agree that we must live in a civil state under civil laws ... and the 8th amendment is a civil law ... that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil process.

I regret that the thread hasn't lived up to your expectations ... but I would point out that I have made my points in a civil and respectful manner.

Please list what these exceptional situations are in your opinion

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nope, that's why a foetus is called a fetus and not a child and why the birth cert records the date of birth and not the date of conception.

And a newborn is called a baby ... but its still also a child.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

The emotional language you use doesn't (thankfully) change the facts.

A pregnant woman is said to be 'with child' for a reason.:)

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.
... and they are legally persons in this country, unless and until this status is stripped away from them by the removal of the 8th.

In the same concept that a microchip is a computer

54and56

J C wrote: »

And a newborn is called a baby ... but its still also a child.

A pregnant woman is said to be 'with child' for a reason.:)

Sure, and it's an incorrect reason.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

I never shouted at you or anybody else.

Shouting is using CAPITAL LETTERS ... embolding text is used for clarity and emphasis.

No! It's just annoying

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

The Supreme Court is due to hear a case about this next month, but I guess we can tell them not to bother, because Judge JC has already decided. :rolleyes:

A foetus is not legally a person. If it were, then every pregnant women would be able to claim child benefit. Every miscarriage would have to have a death certificate issued. The act of an illegal abortion would have to be regarded as a homicide and have penalties of up to life imprisonment. So, no, a foetus is not legally a person.

In future, please do some proper research before making wild claims about what the law says, because it's doing your argument absolutely no favours.

The first requirement for Child Benefit is that the child is born (and is costing you money maintaining them) ... that has no effect on their personhood.

The law always had some leniency when it comes to abortion and indeed infanticide. Society recognises that women who act to kill their child are not as responsible for their actions as any other killing might be viewed.
It is based on the fact that the normal/natural instinct of a mother is to love and protect her child and she effectively may be in a state of somewhat diminished responsiblity (or in some dire personal circumstances) to do such a thing.
Perhaps this is a residue of paternalism ... perhaps not ... but that is how the law operates.

The law also recognises that a foetus is somewhat less developed than a newborn than an infant.
Infanticide, for example, and its reduced legal penalties is confined to a mother who kills her baby ... a mother who killed her older child, would likely face a murder charge.
All these facits of the law are practical, compassionate and reasonable things IMO.

As I understand the current state of the Law (as defined by the High Court) is that unborn children have personhood.
It is being appealed to the Supreme Court ... so I'm not acting as a judge when I talk of the current situation.

NuMarvel

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Sure, and it's an incorrect reason.

I have to say, I've never heard a pregnant woman say "I'm with child". They're more likely to say "I'm expecting", which means the child isn't there yet.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

In the same concept that a microchip is a computer

... no, a computer is a computer ... and a child is a child.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

I have to say, I've never heard a pregnant woman say "I'm with child". They're more likely to say "I'm expecting", which means the child isn't there yet.

She is expecting the birth of her child ... but she also knows that she is pregnant with a child.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Please list what these exceptional situations are in your opinion

They basically revolve around situations where the mothers life is in danger.

Gerry T

J C wrote:

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.

Sorry OP if this has been asked, I've just seen this thread.
Anyway you say thou "shall not kill" which I get. But where did the"except" come from. I didn't think there was an except under any circumstances. Either you can kill or you can't. Or where am I going wrong?
So if you think under a certain circumstances it's ok to kill, then why not abortion?

uck51js9zml2yt

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

That's because unborn fetuses are not people. What's hard to understand about that? No one I know is pretending otherwise. Human rights apply to actual humans, not fetuses.

So let's get it over with and kill them up to 39 weeks 6 days.

J C

Gerry T wrote: »

Sorry OP if this has been asked, I've just seen this thread.
Anyway you say thou "shall not kill" which I get. But where did the"except" come from. I didn't think there was an except under any circumstances. Either you can kill or you can't. Or where am I going wrong?
So if you think under a certain circumstances it's ok to kill, then why not abortion?

There is a logical balance to the absolute prohibition on killing ... which is what a person can morally (and legally) do in self defense?
Logically, all measures may be morally taken up to and including killing the agressor provided no other option is available.

In abortion this principle allows abortion where a mother's life is ar risk (and no other option is available).
... but it doesn't legitimise abortion on demand, for example.

... and BTW, even though 'thou shall not kill' is the Sixth Commandment, this principle is routinely applied by every state when it comes to intentional killings in their juristictions ... which means that it isn't an exclusively religious principle.
People of all religions and none hold to this principle for very practical 'real world' reasons.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

The first requirement for Child Benefit is that the child is born (and is costing you money maintaining them) ... that has no effect on their personhood.

The law always had some leniency when it comes to abortion and indeed infanticide. Society recognises that women who act to kill their child are not as responsible for their actions as any other killing might be viewed.
It is based on the fact that the normal/natural instinct of a mother is to love and protect her child and she effectively may be in a state of somewhat diminished responsiblity to do such a thing.
Perhaps this is a residue of paternalism ... perhaps not ... but that is how the law operates.

The law also recognises that a foetus is somewhat less developed than a newborn than an infant.
Infanticide, for example, and its reduced legal penalties is confined to a mother who kills her baby ... a mother who killed her older child, would face a murder charge.
All these facits of the law are practical and reasonable things IMO.

There's a lot in here that's wrong , but rather than get into all that (I'd be here all night otherwise), I'll just point out that the fact remains that legally, a foetus is not legally a person. If for no other reason than if that were already legally the case, the Supreme Court wouldn't need to decide on this issue next month.

Gerry T

J C wrote:

There is a logical balance to the absolute prohibition on killing ... which is what a person can morally (and legally) do in self defense? Logically, all measures may be morally taken up to and including killing the agressor provided no other option is available.

But the commandment didn't give exceptions. Jesus could have defended himself from being killed but he didn't. Your argument may be logical but it's not what the commandment says. If you going to follow the rules YOU can't make exceptions to suit yourself. So if someone tries to kill you, yes you can defend yourself but not to the degree where you yourself will intentionally kill. If you do your breaking that commandment any your no better than any other murderer.

gallifreya

I appreciate that a Christian view on when life begins will differ. However, would you at least consider that a foetus has only the potential to become a person? With all the will in the world.... a foetus may never be so. Spontaneous abortions happen naturally all the time, especially in the first trimester - why should a medical abortion be treated or considered any differently?
My own view is that 12 weeks is a reasonable time limit for medical abortions. Bearing in mind that the foetus at this stage of development is not fully formed, not capable of feeling pain, does not have nervous system connectivity etc. Potential viability should be the benchmark and this could be fluid depending on medical advances.

Posts referring to equality really push my buttons. How can a foetus possibly have equality with the Mother – who is an actual person in law? In this country we actively reverse equality in a pregnancy situation. The Mother’s rights are completely subsumed by the rights of the foetus which is not imo lawfully or even ( in my view) philosophically a person. It is a potential person which does not achieve personhood until birth when those rights are conferred.

I used to be ambivalent on the subject of abortion until I became pregnant myself and saw firsthand the effects of the 8th amendment. It’s a horror show. Whatever your feelings on abortion, at least have a close look at the amendment as it stands. It does NOT protect against abortion (women with means just go elsewhere and women without means either get into debt to do the same or procure unsafe methods to achieve the end result) but it DOES have a detrimental effect on pregnant women in general. If it is removed from the constitution, legislation can address that. I would not be so sure that our TDs would legislate in favour of unrestricted abortions at all. However, at least the medical profession would be free protect actual existing women in a way they currently are hindered from doing.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

gallifreya wrote:

I appreciate that a Christian view on when life begins will differ. However, would you at least consider that a foetus has only the potential to become a person? With all the will in the world.... a foetus may never be so. Spontaneous abortions happen naturally all the time, especially in the first trimester - why should a medical abortion be treated or considered any differently? My own view is that 12 weeks is a reasonable time limit for medical abortions. Bearing in mind that the foetus at this stage of development is not fully formed, not capable of feeling pain, does not have nervous system connectivity etc. Potential viability should be the benchmark and this could be fluid depending on medical advances.

The baby in the womb may never be born, but he or she possesses a stainless soul, and will be able to enter Heaven.