nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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"

[Deleted User]

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 !!!

[Deleted User]

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.

J C

Water John wrote: »

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.

If your're trying to make sense of the RCC's many pronouncements on these issues ... all I'll say ... is good luck with that!!!:)

Water John

I think I would call you out on that JC. You disclaim your stance as being RCC so you are not tied but my reading is that you simply espouse a conservative catholic position.
I as are the majority of Irish citizens RCC. I'm not very active but RCC none the less.
Its how us and how we reconcile or religion and others positions will determine the outcome of the Repeal Referendum.
I want an honest debate. Don't think you are playing ball.

eviltwin

How far does a Christians responsibility to protect the unborn extend? If one knows a woman is due to travel to the UK for an abortion, are they morally obligated to try and prevent her travelling? If one knows of a woman who has ordered abortion pills online, is there an obligation to tell the authorities?

Sesame

I looked up that Latin inheritance law. I never heard of it before. It's a common law and not defined in Irish law but that's besides the point.

It also makes it clear that a fetus does have inheritance rights if it is born alive. So even that law differentiates between a born baby and a fetus.
It doesn't quite fit the brief you are giving it as a real legal child who happens to be unborn.

To add a personal antodote, I miscarried, around 9 weeks. It went in the toilet. An egg sized mass of cells. It hurt a bit. I was upset as I had planned so much for the baby it would be. But it wasn't a baby or unborn child that died. No one died. A mass of cells developed incorrectly and was not developing correctly so my body naturally aborted the pregnancy.

It doesn't feature on the scale of grief or mental anguish losing a real living child would.
It was over in about a week and I barely remember it. Mentally, it was over in about a week too. Life moved on and we tried again.
Now I know miscarriages affect all families differently but it's never comparable to a death.

I mention this as you try to compare a fetus with a living child. In every aspect they are very far apart.

Harika

eviltwin wrote: »

How far does a Christians responsibility to protect the unborn extend?

If yes, so how about women that continue smoking and drinking during pregnancy. No where you will see more women smoking than outside a maturnity hospital. At least my observation. Both actions are potentially harmful and can kill the unborn child. Should this be prosecuted?

alias no.9

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 the intentional killing of innocent people.

Should the full 10 commandments be written into the constitution? Given the recent history in this country, perhaps we'd have been well served by a constitutional ban on coveting thy neighbours home.

There is no constitutional prohibition on the murder of a new born baby, or a person of any age once they've been born, it is dealt with in legislation. This vote is to remove the constitutional prohibition on abortion, nothing else.

J C

Water John wrote: »

I think I would call you out on that JC. You disclaim your stance as being RCC so you are not tied but my reading is that you simply espouse a conservative catholic position.
I as are the majority of Irish citizens RCC. I'm not very active but RCC none the less.
Its how us and how we reconcile or religion and others positions will determine the outcome of the Repeal Referendum.
I want an honest debate. Don't think you are playing ball.

Where/how am I not 'playing ball'?

Where am I 'espousing a conservative catholic position'?

I think that labelling individual posters is not somenthing that will be profitably engaged in ... because labels, by their very nature are often used as terms of derision by opponents ... and many times are false anyway.

There is little light to be gained from such behaviour ... and a potential for plenty of heat !!!:eek:

Water John

Thanks Sesame, for sharing your personal experience. That's the point I'm following. By present RCC teaching, why would such not be baptised?
Sorry Sesame, if that's insensitive.

Sesame

It's not, and I wonder how appalled and horrified they are to read it ended up in the sewers and not a consecrated grave with late rites administered, etc.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

How far does a Christians responsibility to protect the unborn extend? If one knows a woman is due to travel to the UK for an abortion, are they morally obligated to try and prevent her travelling? If one knows of a woman who has ordered abortion pills online, is there an obligation to tell the authorities?

We are not our sister's keeper ... so she is perfectly entitled to travel wherever she wants.
If she is illegally importing prescription only medecines, she is breaking the law ... and such importations (of all kinds of medecines) are routinely seized by the customs authorities.
... so, once again, no reason to be your sister's keeper.
Having said that, if she actually is your sister or your wife or partner, you should show your loving support for her and her unborn child in as many practical ways as possible.