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

martingriff

J C wrote: »

A Saved Christian.

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

Yes you said that in the message I quoted. But I was wondering what is a saved Christian. As by what I would believes all Christians are saved. Unless you think you are something different which as you said is a different thread

martingriff

Sesame wrote: »

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.

I was think born again Christian or the latter day saints

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

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

It's not, because accessing abortion without having to give a reason can only happen in the first 12 weeks. The 12 weeks is itself a limit. Anyone who has an abortion after that can only do so for one of the reasons and timeframes that will be set out in legislation.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

NuMarvel wrote: »

It's not, because accessing abortion without having to give a reason can only happen in the first 12 weeks. The 12 weeks is itself a limit. Anyone who has an abortion after that can only do so for one of the reasons and timeframes that will be set out in legislation.

Have you seen the wording of the proposed change? Because TDs and Media haven't yet.

Huntergonzo

J C wrote: »

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 any clearer ... it simply says 'thou shall not kill'.

But there is quite a bit of killing in the bible, sort of makes the sixth commandment a bit redundant or at the very least it's a glaring contradiction. Not sure how christians reconcile this problem.

J C

Harika wrote: »

Like I read it he said unrestricted means in the first 12 weeks but that is far from unrestricted in my opinion.

If it is going to be unrestricted in the first 12 weeks ... how is this also 'far from unrestricted'?
... and if the 8th Amendment is to simply be deleted ... then what is to stop 12 weeks becoming 24 ... or whatever?

Harika wrote: »

To come back to the original question, Christians can ask themselves when the embryo is life and set themselves this limit.

What are you saying here?
The fertilised egg is alive and Human ... and it remains alive (hopefully) and Human ... until it is 100 ... if its lucky!!

Harika wrote: »

And contrary to what was said here the science of what life is or what the definition is, is far from settled.

How life originally came about is far from settled ... but how a new life is conceived is fully known to science ... it starts with the ferilisation of an ovum by a sperm ... and proceeds in a tightly specified growth process from there.

Of course, if somebody want to kill it and suffer no legal consequences, they must first remove its personhood, by creating a fiction around its humanity ... and whether it is truly Human or not.

J C

Sesame wrote: »

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.

I found Jesus about 20 years ago ... so not fairly recently.
... and I don't believe you are going to Hell ... unless you really want to.

I naturally wish that all might be Saved ... but I'm realistic enough to know that this may not always be possible.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Harika wrote:

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

God wiping away unrepentant sinners.

NuMarvel

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

Have you seen the wording of the proposed change? Because TDs and Media haven't yet.

And neither has the OP. He's basing the thread on a newspaper article, which was in turn based on the recommendations of the Committee on the 8th. Those recommendations are also what I based my post on.

So while no one has seen the legislation, we are all at least discussing the same source material. And in any case, whatever one may think of the recommendations, I'd say we can all agree the Oireachtas is unlikely to go beyond them when passing legislation.

Harika

J C wrote: »

If it is going to be unrestricted in the first 12 weeks ... how is this also 'far from unrestricted'?
... and if the 8th Amendment is to simply be deleted ... then what is to stop 12 weeks becoming 24 ... or whatever?

A pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, access restricted to only 12 weeks is restricted. Maybe legislation could stop the change to 24 weeks? Me as non Christian and pro choice person I would oppose unrestricted access to abortion past week 12.

J C wrote: »

What are you saying here?
The fertilised egg is alive and Human ... and it remains alive (hopefully) and Human ... until it is 100 ... if its lucky!!

what is the definition of alive?

J C wrote: »

How life originally came about is far from settled ... but how a new life is conceived is fully known to science ... it starts with the ferilisation of an ovum by a sperm ... and proceeds in a tightly specified growth process from there.

Of course, if somebody want to kill it and suffer no legal consequences, they must first remove its personhood, by creating a fiction around its humanity ... and whether it is truly Human or not.

A fetus is not a person and decision is to be made when the fetus becomes a person.

Harika

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God wiping away unrepentant sinners.

You shall not kill except he or she is an unrepentant sinner. I didn't learn that in school I have to admit.

J C

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But there is quite a bit of killing in the bible, sort of makes the sixth commandment a bit redundant or at the very least it's a glaring contradiction. Not sure how christians reconcile this problem.

Of course, fallen Humans don't always obey the laws of God or man ... but that certainly isn't a good reason to repeal them.

J C

Harika wrote: »

You shall not kill except he or she is an unrepentant sinner. I didn't learn that in school I have to admit.

Neither did I ... for Humans it always has been 'you shall not kill' unless in self-defense and no alternative is available.

Bubbaclaus

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But there is quite a bit of killing in the bible, sort of makes the sixth commandment a bit redundant or at the very least it's a glaring contradiction. Not sure how christians reconcile this problem.

Let's not forget the mass killing sprees by God himself contained within the bible. Makes his commandments a bit hypocritical.

Doesn't seem like a very nice chap. Find it odd people worship him. If he was a President of a country he would be impeached and likely hung like Saddam.

Huntergonzo

J C wrote: »

Of course, fallen Humans don't always obey the laws of God or man ... but that certainly isn't a good reason to repeal them.

Ok then we're agreed, forget the 6th commandment.

Now problem with the laws of god are, I (like many other people) don't believe in any of the thousands of gods that have been worshiped throughout human history and I imagine that you don't believe in most of them either so why should the laws of any god effect humans on a day to day basis.

Man made laws are different, we've made them to try and best serve society (well in theory anyway, there's a lot of corruption aswell of course), so while they're often flawed, we can debate them and change them if need be. The 'laws of god' on the other hand are entirely subjective and unsubstantiated.

Harika

J C wrote: »

Neither did I ... for Humans it always has been 'you shall not kill' unless in self-defense and no alternative is available.

So god is allowed to kill? Does that make the commandment not obsolete or himself a giant hypocrite?

Huntergonzo

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Let's not forget the mass killing sprees by God himself contained within the bible. Makes his commandments a bit hypocritical.

Doesn't seem like a very nice chap. Find it odd people worship him. If he was a President of a country he would be impeached and likely hung like Saddam.

Ah but he's god, he's above all law, including his own.

Anyway let's ignore all that inconvenient killing in the bible and just focus on 6th commandment, that's the comfort zone.

Huntergonzo

Harika wrote: »

So god is allowed to kill? Does that make the commandment not obsolete or himself a giant hypocrite?

I think this point is hopelessly lost on christians but there's no credible way out of it.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Harika wrote:

You shall not kill except he or she is an unrepentant sinner. I didn't learn that in school I have to admit.

You weren't listening. How could an unrepentant sinner get into heaven?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Bubbaclaus wrote:

Let's not forget the mass killing sprees by God himself contained within the bible. Makes his commandments a bit hypocritical.

Bubbaclaus wrote:

Doesn't seem like a very nice chap. Find it odd people worship him. If he was a President of a country he would be impeached and likely hung like Saddam.

He only wipes away the unrepentants.

J C

Harika wrote: »

A pregnancy lasts 40 weeks, access restricted to only 12 weeks is restricted. Maybe legislation could stop the change to 24 weeks? Me as non Christian and pro choice person I would oppose unrestricted access to abortion past week 12.

Better than greater than 12 weeks allright.

Harika wrote: »

what is the definition of alive?

Not dead, I suppose ... which what I want for all unborn children.

Harika wrote: »

A fetus is not a person and decision is to be made when the fetus becomes a person.

That is the 'legal fiction' that allows abortion, while maintaining the illegality of killing all other persons.
Quote:-
"A legal fiction, is a rule assuming as true something that is clearly false. A fiction is often used to get around the provisions of constitutions and legal codes that legislators are hesitant to change or to encumber with specific limitations."

Miike

In my opinion:

A Christian can vote for "unlimited abortion"(Coining that term is dangerous at best) without being DIRECTLY responsible for for every abortion that happens as a result of that vote, should it pass.

Despite JC's soap-boxing I think people should be given the right to exercise choice if they so wish. If a non christian decides to have an abortion at 9 weeks, does that mean every Christian who votes for "unlimited abortion" is responsible? Of course it doesn't and suggesting that it does is quite simply manipulative and dangerous. The Christian bible nor the follower of God has the right to govern the decision of the masses regardless of their religion. If Christians have a problem with abortion they would have the RIGHT to EXERCISE CHOICE in not having an abortion.

Statements like "being directly responsible for the DEATH or KILLING of a person" is quite frankly preposterous and manipulative.

and finally, using "Bible Questions Answered" as a 'SCIENTIFIC' SOURCE is well :eek:

J C

Harika wrote: »

So god is allowed to kill? Does that make the commandment not obsolete or himself a giant hypocrite?

Man is also allowed to kill in self defense or the defense of others, where no alternative is available.
... and everyone correctly thinks its a good idea to do so ... for example, with an ectopic pregnancy.

In regard to God ... He was physically interventionist Himself before Jesus Christ died and rose again ... and formed His Church on Earth.
His interventions are thought to have been directed towards securing the line to allow Jesus Christ to be incarnated as true God and true man.

NaFirinne

To answer the original question.

I do not think you can be a Christian and vote for abortion.

A Christian is someone who essentially believes in and follows Christ.

If Christ was around today what would he teach about abortion?

As a Christian abortion is one of the most anti christian act there is.

J C

Miike wrote: »

In my opinion:

A Christian can vote for "unlimited abortion"(Coining that term is dangerous at best) without being DIRECTLY responsible for for every abortion that happens as a result of that vote, should it pass.

They are morally responsible for the result of every action they take, just like everybody else is.

They could avoid the responsibility, to some degree, by not voting at all ... but they could only avoid it totally by voting no.

Of course, they could conclude that there is no moral or ethical issue, with procured abortion, in the first place ... and if they can do this, then they will vote yes, with a clear conscience.

Water John

Well, if we repeal the 8th. As citizens we will just have removed it from the Constitution. We are aware that the Oireactas may put legislation in place but we have no responsibility for that happening. We are not actually voting for abortion. This is the same as the right to travel. We know women were going abroad for abortions but we enshrined their right to do so.

EirWatchr

Peregrinus wrote: »

(and certainly not Catholic teaching) that the state should always criminalise that which is morally and ethically wrong.

Except for cases of protection of the human right to life:

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.'

'The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.'"

- CCC: 2273

So, it is incumbent on Catholics to do all they can to insist that the state protects the human right to life, most especially where those individuals are voiceless and defenceless - the same class of people every Christian is especially called to love, represent, and defend as equal to everyone else.

J C

Water John wrote: »

Well, if we repeal the 8th. As citizens we will just have removed it from the Constitution. We are aware that the Oireactas may put legislation in place but we have no responsibility for that happening. We are not actually voting for abortion.

We are actually ... the stated reason for the removal of the 8th is to allow the introduction of abortion ... so we cannot morally distance ourselves from an action we take with such a direct and obvious consequence ... unless we can convince ourselves that the result (unrestricted abortion eventually, if not immediately) is morally licit.

Cabaal

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

You weren't listening. How could an unrepentant sinner get into heaven?

So again we are back to murder is ok.

So if somebody is unrepentant are you OK with them being murdered too? After all you're OK with it when God murders them.

What if a priest were to murder the sinner and the priest said God told them to?

Harika

Cabaal wrote: »

So again we are back to murder is ok.

So if somebody is unrepentant are you OK with them being murdered too? After all you're OK with it when God murders them.

What if a priest were to murder the sinner and the priest said God told them to?

So far that is not in the exception list. Maybe if the woman shouts "its coming towards me!" then the abortion might be allowed. Self defence is on the exception list, so maybe the Christians can construct something out of that?