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

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

If you don't want to ban women travelling for abortions right now you are OK with abortions taking place still... Just not in Ireland.

You can't claim abortion is bad and then be perfectly fine with people travelling to do it. It's laughable.

The reason why no Christian lobby group has even suggested banning travel for abortions is they know the public backlash would be massive and they do seriously big damage to their public image..... Lolek Ltd I'm looking at you.

What are you proposing? That we interview every woman of child bearing age on their intentions in leaving the country.

Cabaal

EirWatchr wrote: »

The only purpose of repealing the 8th is to allow for abortions here. Abortion is what we'll get. If you vote to repeal the 8th, you are complicit in the introduction of abortion in Ireland. You can't abrogate away culpability to the politicians for that.

If you don't want to ban women travelling for abortions right now you are OK with abortions taking place still... Just not in Ireland.

You can't claim abortion is bad and then be perfectly fine with people travelling to do it. It's laughable.

The reason why no Christian lobby group has even suggested banning travel for abortions is they know the public backlash would be massive and they do seriously big damage to their public image..... Lolek Ltd I'm looking at you.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

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.

There are already several examples of the law being divergent from Catholic teachings, and I've never seen a single Catholic calling for change.

For example, the Constitution specifically protects the freedom to travel and to access information about abortion from the reach of the 8th. This puts those freedoms above the unborn's right to life. Yet no one has ever called for these provisions to be repealed.

Similarly, despite the 2009 ruling that frozen embryos have absolutely no legal protection, no one has ever said the law or constitution should be changed to apply from conception.

While I can understand that abortion would be considered more serious than the issues above, if the criteria is that Catholics are obliged to do all that they can, then there's obviously much more they should be doing, but that they don't.

J C

Water John wrote: »

Dismissing it in such a manner is convenient. People in effect have already voted, in one manner, to allow abortions. They just happen to be carried out, in another country.

We are not our neighbour's keeper.
All we can do is to do our best (for both women and unborn children) when faced with any decisions we are asked to make on the introduction of abortion into Ireland.

Water John

Dismissing it in such a manner is convenient. People in effect have already voted, in one manner, to allow abortions. They just happen to be carried out, in another country.

Thinkingaboutit

No.

J C

Water John wrote: »

That is your opinion but Govn't, on legal advice, disagreed. That is why we voted on it.
I do not accept the two are different.

Perhaps the 'right to travel' amendment was was a 'belt and braces' ... either way, there was no moral issue in passing it ... and every reason to do so.

Water John

That is your opinion but Govn't, on legal advice, disagreed. That is why we voted on it.
I do not accept the two are different.

J C

Water John wrote: »

Perhaps you would also include the second part of my post, JC. But that about the right to travel, knowing this would facilitate abortions, you ignore, as it was not convenient to your argument.

The right to travel was a bit of a 'red herring' ... women, like men, have the right to freely travel, whether pregnant or not ... and preventative detention is never used, except in states of emergency, in common law juristictions ... and rightly so, IMO.
Preventative detention is repugnant to justice ... by treating somebody as guilty before they commit a crime.
The Irish people, when faced with this amendment absolutely correctly passed it ... to do otherwise would be a comple travesty, actually.

Manach

I'd agree with OP. To put this in context, prior to the weakening of protections on the unborn this used to be standard set for Common law countries based purely on societal good and moral sentiment. This position was summed up in Keown's The Law and Ethics of Medicine that “Human life is sacred, that is inviolable, so one should never aim to cause an innocent person’s death by act or omission".

Water John

I accept my own responsibilities in life. Just pointing out the obvious contradiction with allowing the, right to travel. Same inevitable consequence.
Is it, here, holy Ireland, is the difference?

EirWatchr

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. 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.

The only purpose of repealing the 8th is to allow for abortions here. Abortion is what we'll get. If you vote to repeal the 8th, you are complicit in the introduction of abortion in Ireland. You can't abrogate away culpability to the politicians for that.

Water John

Perhaps you would also include the second part of my post, JC. But that about the right to travel, knowing this would facilitate abortions, you ignore, as it was not convenient to your argument.

Cabaal

NaFirinne wrote: »

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.

Since you can't know what God or jesus would want or do that's your personal viewpoint.

I'm sure many Christians thought allow women equally vote etc was bad back in the day, allowing same sex unions is also unchristian for many no doubt.

Actual murder of hundreds of people is awful but then lots of Christians are OK with wars and death penalties for crimes. Other Christians are ok with murdering doctors and fire bombing clinics.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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: »

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."

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.