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

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.

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.

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.

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 ????

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

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.

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"

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.

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.

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.

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:)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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!!!:)

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.

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.

[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?

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 !!!

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

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