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

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.

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.

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

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?

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".

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.

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: »

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.

Thinkingaboutit

No.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Harika

J C wrote: »

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.

Wait a moment, you say we are not our neighbor's keeper but still we have to put up legislation to stop our neighbors from having abortions because Christians are responsible if a woman wants to have an abortion. Except if she leaves the country, then hands off.

volchitsa

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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

A recent pregnancy test would do it, and an interrogation for any woman who was no longer pregnant when she returned.

I mean, if it's killing babies, surely it's worth making an effort to stop it?

Cabaal

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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

I'm not for a ban so it's not upto me to come up with stuff. But I'm sure that many caring Christians can knock some heads together and come up with something.

right now if somebody went to the gardai and reported that Mary is going to Manchester for an abortion, the gardai won't act.

By comparison, if somebody reported to the gardai that Mary was traveling to euthanize herself, they will act.

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

A recent pregnancy test would do it, and an interrogation for any woman who was no longer pregnant when she returned.

I mean, if it's killing babies, surely it's worth making an effort to stop it?

15 a day at that,
I guess they don't actually view them as babies like they claim.

Akrasia

What does the bible say about abortion?

Well, it does define life as the first breath, so life begins at birth. It describes the reproduction process as a seed in fertile ground, a seed isn't a plant until it germinates, ie, comes above the soil (is born)

In the bible, abortion is advocated as a way to solve paternity disputes. Give the woman 'bitter water', if the baby is born, then it is a sign from god that the husband is the father and the woman was not unfaithful

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Numbers+5:11-31&version=NIV&interface=amp

For all the christians on here, where does the bible or jesus say that the unborn are the same as fully actualised people?

Akrasia

J C wrote: »

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.

Man is not just allowed to kill, he is commanded to kill to fulfill the punishments god directed for a whole range of behaviour that only the most tyranical of regimes would impose capital punishment for. The bible places very very little value on human life

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

What does the bible say about abortion?

Well, it does define life as the first breath, so life begins at birth. It describes the reproduction process as a seed in fertile ground, a seed isn't a plant until it germinates, ie, comes above the soil (is born)

In the bible, abortion is advocated as a way to solve paternity disputes. Give the woman 'bitter water', if the baby is born, then it is a sign from god that the husband is the father and the woman was not unfaithful

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.biblegateway.com/passage/%3fsearch=Numbers+5:11-31&version=NIV&interface=amp

For all the christians on here, where does the bible or jesus say that the unborn are the same as fully actualised people?

Read the verse you cite. Who is the authority acting here?

God has authority to give and take away. All is his afterall. We don't have that authority - at least, we haven't been given it.

As for when life begins? Read Jeremiah 1:5. We are known by God before and whilst he forms us in the womb. It is his act. To abort interferes with his act and destroys the already existing (in his sight, if not on your) personhood.

EirWatchr

Akrasia wrote: »

For all the christians on here, where does the bible or jesus say that the unborn are the same as fully actualised people?

The "where did Jesus say X" argument again.
For that matter, where did Jesus say their are cases where one person's choice could deny another person's right to live?

Apostolic tradition - what the apostles spread as Christian teaching during the 1st century AD - shows that abortion was to be regarded as killing, contrary to the commandments.

2:1 But the second commandment of the teaching is this. 2:2 Thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not corrupt youth; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use soothsaying; thou shalt not practise sorcery; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou slay it when born; thou shalt not covet the goods of thy neighbour;

- The Didache

J C

Harika wrote: »

Wait a moment, you say we are not our neighbor's keeper but still we have to put up legislation to stop our neighbors from having abortions because Christians are responsible if a woman wants to have an abortion. Except if she leaves the country, then hands off.

We are not our neighbour's keeper ... so on an individual level, we shouldn't take the law into our own hands and become some kind of vigilantes ... the law is there and the organs of state are there to enforce it.
On a state level, we are not our neighbour's keeper either ... and if somebody travels to avail of something that is legal in another juristiction then we cannot and should not stop them doing so.
However, just because somebody wants to avail of something that is legal in another state, dosn't mean that we also have to make it legal in our state, if we are opposed to it for very good reasons.
That's one of the reasons why states have diiferent laws ... reflective of the ethos and mores of their respective societies values.
Even within the one state (the UK) there are very diiferent laws on abortion within each separate legal jusristiction ... for example, in Northern Ireland the law is very similar to our current legal position in the ROI - and very different to the rest of the UK.

NuMarvel

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm not for a ban so it's not upto me to come up with stuff. But I'm sure that many caring Christians can knock some heads together and come up with something.

right now if somebody went to the gardai and reported that Mary is going to Manchester for an abortion, the gardai won't act.

By comparison, if somebody reported to the gardai that Mary was traveling to euthanize herself, they will act.

They couldn't act if Mary was euthanising herself, but they could if she was involved in the euthanisation of someone else.

I think the latter is a better example anyway, because from the point of view of those opposed to abortion, both actions involve one person being involved in the ending of the life of a second.

Yet, while our laws have harsh penalties for those who assist in euthanasia (up to 14 years in prison), those who arrange abortions overseas not only face no penalties, it is constitutionally impossible to apply penalties.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

Read the verse you cite. Who is the authority acting here?

The priest who administers the 'curse'. And honestly, is this your defense? If the foetus is 'illegitimate' than god is justified in killing it?

God has authority to give and take away. All is his afterall. We don't have that authority - at least, we haven't been given it.

'God' gives the 'priest' the authority to administer abortion drugs as a 'curse'. So, maybe christians should only support abortion if the priest is the abortonist, and 'god' gets to decide whether the abortion sticks or not.

In fact, the fact that in this example, god is the authority acting on either killing or preserving the foetus, why is that different to any other abortion, humans can give each other any kind of abortion pills we like, but doesn't god then decide whether to allow them to work?
(sorry, it's hard to make any of this sound sensible, but these are the implications behind the theology that some people amazingly still believe in)

As for when life begins? Read Jeremiah 1:5. We are known by God before and whilst he forms us in the womb. It is his act. To abort interferes with his act and destroys the already existing (in his sight, if not on your) personhood.

So life begins before conception then. great. So the RCC was right, contraception should be illegal and masturbation should be a capital offense as it deprives some of the 'people' that god knows but won't get a chance to be even conceived because of fleshlights and condoms.

J C

Akrasia wrote: »

Man is not just allowed to kill, he is commanded to kill to fulfill the punishments god directed for a whole range of behaviour that only the most tyranical of regimes would impose capital punishment for. The bible places very very little value on human life

Yes, Old Testament times were very rough indeed ... most likely due to the absence of the Holy Spirit from the world ... and it was a 'dog eat dog' ... 'eye for an eye' kind of place ... a hell on earth, if you will ... and it was into that environment that the Mosaic Laws were formulated by Moses.
They were desperate laws ... for a desperate situation.
Jesus Christ came to save the world from such hardness of heart (and law) ... and He proved that the Law on stoning for adultery, for example, wasn't a law of God ... but a man-made addition to the Seventh Commandment ... when He forgave the woman caught in adultery and told her to go away and sin no more.

The only Laws directly given to Mankind by God, in perpetuity, are the 10 Commandments ... and they are the principles by which everyone should live ... if we are to have happy, just and peaceful lives.

Akrasia

EirWatchr wrote: »

The "where did Jesus say X" argument again.
For that matter, where did Jesus say their are cases where one person's choice could deny another person's right to live?

I only brought up Jesus because the Old testament doesn't care about abortion, in fact advocates it, and unless Jesus specifically overturned this doctrine, then we are to assume that he believed the same thing. Who are you, a non deity, to presume what Jesus believed without having something he said to refer to?

Apostolic tradition - what the apostles spread as Christian teaching during the 1st century AD - shows that abortion was to be regarded as killing, contrary to the commandments.

- The Didache

The Didache is non canonical 2nd generation writing, none of the people who wrote it ever met Jesus or even any of the original 12 apostles. It was rejected by the RCC and is not included as part of the new testament, so why should christians today accept it as proof that one of the most important social issues in christianity today when the actual bible says differently.

Abortion was definitely considered as a sin by early christians, but then so was practically everything else to do with sex. Adultery is unambiguously condemned throughout all versions of the bible, but adultery isn't a crime, while abortion is. If abortion is more serious than adultery, why isn't it mentioned even once by Jesus while he bangs on about adultery all the time.

If Jesus wanted to preserve unborn life, he should have said something about it.

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

I'm not for a ban so it's not upto me to come up with stuff. But I'm sure that many caring Christians can knock some heads together and come up with something.

right now if somebody went to the gardai and reported that Mary is going to Manchester for an abortion, the gardai won't act.

By comparison, if somebody reported to the gardai that Mary was traveling to euthanize herself, they will act.

Have you any examples of somebody being detained by Gardai and prevented travelling to euthanize themselves ?

Harika

J C wrote: »

Have you any examples of somebody being detained by Gardai and prevented travelling to euthanize themselves ?

Not detained but stopped http://www.thejournal.ie/assisted-suicide-a-crime-if-suicide-isnt-2073607-Apr2015/

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

endacl wrote:

A Christian who is registered to vote can vote any way they like on any issue.

Not at all. As a Christian you must obey His Commands.