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

Water John

So JC, you are saying that, once the sperm has entered the egg and even before the egg has implanted itself in the wall of the womb, it should be constitutionally defended. Does that mean no, morning after pill?
Also above, isn't the 'sister' on equal rights with the foetus. You are giving her travel rights priority, over the life of the foetus, that you know will be terminated.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

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.

And if she decides she wants an abortion? Do you report her to the police? Do you disown her for "murdering a child" as so many pro-life people would put it?

J C

Harika wrote: »

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?

There is a school of thought that is considering such draconian measures.
They're already banned from smoking inside the gates of every hospital.

Any move to prosecute pregnant mothers would be totally over-the-top IMO ... cigarettes do much greater harm to the mother herself, than to any child that she is carrying.
... but the anti-smoking'drinking lobby has long tentacles ... and they are getting longer!!!:eek:
This is a totally separate issue from abortion iMO.

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

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

You got it in one... congratulations:)

Anita Blow

J C wrote: »

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.

Savita Halappanavar's death was indeed tragic and as a country we are responsible for what happened to her. To try sweep it under the carpet and abdicate responsibility isn't right.

Expert opinion (Rhona Mahoney and almost every other Obstetrician in the country) disagrees with you on the POLDP being adequate. In fact since it's inception we have had the PP case, the B case & the Y case. A new case almost every year. Take the most recent one, the Y case- a severely mentally ill young girl became pregnant from rape and attempted multiple suicides, eventually going on hunger strike. She was force-fed against her will to maintain the pregnancy and the infant removed via C-section at 26 weeks. Anyone who votes to maintain a law which produces cases like this is directly morally responsible for such depraved acts and that is a responsibility they cannot abdicate.

The reality is that we cannot legislate for every medical eventuality, we leave it to experts and the individual/family involved to make such deeply personal decisions.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And if she decides she wants an abortion? Do you report her to the police? Do you disown her for "murdering a child" as so many pro-life people would put it?

Of course, I wouldn't ... I would extend a hand of friendship to her ... we are all sinners in need of Salvation.

She (and not me) will have to live with her conscience in relation to whatever decision she takes.

If she was my daughter, I certainly wouldn't disown her ... but I would be deeply saddened that she felt that it was necessary to kill my grandchild.

Water John

You use religious euphemisms, sinners etc. Yet claim not to be in any way setting out a religious viewpoint. I'm either confused or skeptical.

Ash.J.Williams

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.

Depends on what you mean by "unlimited"

J C

Anita Blow wrote: »

Savita Halappanavar's death was indeed tragic and as a country we are responsible for what happened to her. To try sweep it under the carpet and abdicate responsibility isn't right.

Expert opinion (Rhona Mahoney and almost every other Obstetrician in the country) disagrees with you on the POLDP being adequate. In fact since it's inception we have had the PP case, the B case & the Y case. A new case almost every year. Take the most recent one, the Y case- a severely mentally ill young girl became pregnant from rape and attempted multiple suicides, eventually going on hunger strike. She was force-fed against her will to maintain the pregnancy and the infant removed via C-section at 26 weeks. Anyone who votes to maintain a law which produces cases like this is directly morally responsible for such depraved acts and that is a responsibility they cannot abdicate.

The reality is that we cannot legislate for every medical eventuality, we leave it to experts and the individual/family involved to make such deeply personal decisions.

Hard cases make bad law.
For example, would this girl be force-fed if she wasn't pregnant and refusing food?
I think she would, if she was deemed to not be compos mentis at the time.
Here is a case of a (non-pregnant) woman who was refusing food due to a mental illness episode where the courts granted the HSE powers to force feed her, if it was demed necessary.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/court-allows-doctors-to-force-feed-patient-refusing-food-and-fluids-1.1965138

... so your description of the force feeding of a pregnant mentally ill girl as a 'depraved act' is very much wide of the mark ... and it is objectively a compassionate and caring act for somebody who is going through a temporary severe bout of mental illness.

... and certainly opening the floodgates to unlimited abortion is no solution.

J C

Water John wrote: »

You use religious euphemisms, sinners etc. Yet claim not to be in any way setting out a religious viewpoint. I'm either confused or skeptical.

I am a Christian ... so naturally I have a religious viewpoint on an issue as fundamental as the right to life ... and I make no apologies for holding that viewpoint.
However, this doesn't prevent me from taking a reasoned and logical approach to justify and support my viewpoint from first principles of morality, logic and law.
... and challenging those who claim to be logical in their approach to this issue ... when they may not actually be at all.

J C

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by "unlimited"

... 'unlimited' means 'no limits'.
Its what the pro-abortion lobby has been campaigning for ... for decades ... and they think it is now within their grasp.

Who knows ... maybe it is ????

NinetyTwoTeam

Does a Christian have to put a word in bold type in every other sentence? No offense but it just makes you seem like a stereotypical Bible basher.

Having abortion illegal here does not stop abortion. It just causes extra stress, expense and possibly danger to the woman.

If a Christian believes that men should not have the right to rule over women's bodies, they very well can vote for it to be legalized. They aren't performing or having the procedure, and they don't have to like the idea of the procedure, to see the sense in not trying to force women to have unwanted children, especially when those measures are not in anyway preventing abortion anyway.

Ash.J.Williams

J C wrote: »

... 'unlimited' means 'no limits'.
Its what the pro-abortion lobby has been campaigning for ... for decades ... and they think it is now within their grasp.

Who knows ... maybe it is ????

You're a dangerous snide individual... I think my simple question and your answer has outed you as an extremist.

Water John

OP is quite obviously coming from a conservative RCC angle. If he/she openly declared that, I would respect it and have a full discussion to tease out, my own thoughts.

Huntergonzo

I don't personally view abortion as the killing of a human being but presumably a lot of christians do, however there are quite a few examples of killing being permitted in the bible, would that not be at odds with a christian being against abortion on moral grounds?

NuMarvel

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.

"Unlimited abortion" is already available and being availed of, it's just usually carried out elsewhere. And that was something we voted not to block 25 years ago. So a No vote just means that continues.

Plus voting for the status quo means continuing to expose women to greater risk of harm or death. Not just those who travel for an abortion, but women here who experience complications during their pregnancy. An example of this is the woman who died during ectopic surgery in Holles Street two years ago. While the hospital and doctors are absolutely responsible for the effects of the surgery, the problem she had could have been treated with non-invasive options, but the 8th meant she had to have surgery. So the 8th means women will be exposed to the risks of unnecessary surgery.

Conversely, a Yes vote would reduce or eliminate the risks of harm or death. It would bring us in line with our Northern European neighbours, which is one of the safest regions in the world to have an abortion.

So voting No means abortions continue happening, but pregnant women will be exposed to greater risks. A Yes vote means abortions continue happening, but pregnant women will be exposed to fewer risks. If abortions are going to happen anyway, and we don't seem interested in punishing or being able to stop women who currently have abortions, isn't reducing the risks of injury or death to the woman the moral thing to do?

J C

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You're a dangerous snide individual... I think my simple question and your answer has outed you as an extremist.

An extremist for what?

I'm an ordinary Christian man who loves my God ... and my fellow man ... in equal measure.

It's the newspapers who are talking about plans for unlimited abortion ... not me.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkars-concern-over-11831044

J C

Water John wrote: »

OP is quite obviously coming from a conservative RCC angle. If he/she openly declared that, I would respect it and have a full discussion to tease out, my own thoughts.

The irony of it !!!
I'm a Saved Christian ... so what do you want to tease out with me, now that you know that?

martingriff

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You're a dangerous snide individual... I think my simple question and your answer has outed you as an extremist.

Is that because he called you pro abortion? Because you are what is wrong with that.

Saying that I agree with Water John that JC is hiding his true intentions. If he/she is so strong with there opinion they should just come out and admit it.

I am religious but not sure how I will vote yet but veering towards yes. There was a segment on the news last week in relation to a message from the all Ireland primate. They were talking to people coming out of mass and there were not all the same with there answers. 1 lady said was she did think it would come in and she saw nothing wrong with it and she believed it should not be banned. She had her own opinions and they should be desperate from state

Ash.J.Williams

Water John wrote: »

OP is quite obviously coming from a conservative RCC angle. If he/she openly declared that, I would respect it and have a full discussion to tease out, my own thoughts.

Me too. As far as I'm aware the unrestricted abortion idea came from ultra religious organisations trying to tarnish the pro choice movements. I have never heard of anybody suggesting an abortion should be unrestricted.

Ash.J.Williams

J C wrote: »

An extremist for what?

I'm an ordinary Christian man who loves my God ... and my fellow man ... in equal measure.

Its the newspapers who are talking about plans for unlimited abortion ... not me.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkars-concern-over-11831044

That's an amazing news source you've provided there dude

martingriff

J C wrote: »

The irony of it !!!
I'm a Saved Christian ... so what do you want to tease out?

Sorry a what

martingriff

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Me too. As far as I'm aware the unrestricted abortion idea came from ultra religious organisations trying to tarnish the pro choice movements. I have never heard of anybody suggesting an abortion should be unrestricted.

There are plenty who want unrestricted abortion all be it with a timeframe some up to 24 weeks. I will admit there are a tiny minority who say it will be 12 weeks now it will be 30 odd weeks in a few years

J C

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Me too. As far as I'm aware the unrestricted abortion idea came from ultra religious organisations trying to tarnish the pro choice movements. I have never heard of anybody suggesting an abortion should be unrestricted.

Please have a look here, then:-
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/politics/taoiseach-leo-varadkars-concern-over-11831044

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."

J C

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry a what

A Saved Christian.

Everyone should be one ... but that's for another thread !!!:)

Harika

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Me too. As far as I'm aware the unrestricted abortion idea came from ultra religious organisations trying to tarnish the pro choice movements. I have never heard of anybody suggesting an abortion should be unrestricted.

Like I read it he said unrestricted means in the first 12 weeks but that is far from unrestricted in my opinion. Like their are countries with abortions to a far later date but with a lot of ifs. Like close by a child was born with underdeveloped brain unable to breath, so child was born and died within minutes. To abort here until week 40 would really mean unrestricted imo.
To come back to the original question, Christians can ask themselves when the embryo is life and set themselves this limit. And contrary to what was said here the science of what life is or what the definition is, is far from settled.

J C

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

That's an amazing news source you've provided there dude

Never mind the messenger ... is the message correct?

Sesame

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry a what

A saved Christian, as in, he/she found God fairly recently and thinks its wonderful and wants to spread hid/her idealogies on us poor souls.

Usually more outspoken and evangelical than any devout RCC supporter. Believes we are all going to hell.

J C

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I don't personally view abortion as the killing of a human being but presumably a lot of christians do,

... and if you didn't personally think that red was red ... would it make it white?
An unborn child is objectively a Human Being ... at an early stage of growth allright ... but a fully Human Being nonetheless.
Its also totally dependent on its mother for survival ... but then a newborn child is also totally dependent on adult Humans for its survival as well.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

however there are quite a few examples of killing being permitted in the bible, would that not be at odds with a christian being against abortion on moral grounds?

There is certainly a lot of accounts of killing in the Bible.
... but it is crystal clear that Humans should not kill each other ... the Sixth Commandment couldn't be clearer ... it simply says 'thou shall not kill'.

Harika

Sleeper12 wrote: »

That never stopped the Christian group the KKK from killing

God himself was not really following this ammendment. Hi Noahs flood, soddom & gomorrah or onan.