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

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

... yes, we need to spread the love and justice inherent in Christianity to more places and more people both at home and abroad.

... but a good start, would not be removing the right to life, of the most vulnerable of human beings ... the unborn.

Why doesn't your "god" just click his fingers and remove famine? Poverty? War? Etc?

And please don't post the ususal.: mans free will" cop out reply!

Famine is not.mans free will so your."god" could remove this with a single thought.

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

Why didn't the creator of the universe communicate in a way that it was obvious what we should do and not do

Interestingly, In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins cited scientific research to the effect that, when stripped of local factors such as education, religion, societal norms and the like, human morality the world over is the same. It didn't matter if the human was a member of a primitive tribe, or a member of a sophisticated society.

Richard's point, obviously, was to point to a common ancestor for this unity of morality. The Christian wouldn't disagree about that, we'd only differ on who the common ancestor was.

Seems God has given us a clear list of do's and don't. But that man is capable of bending them to his own ends.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Tell that to the billions living in abject poverty and starvation! An issue your "god" could solve with a thought if he really cared about the human race.

There's a hint in there. What is it about man that man can't do it?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Tell that to the billions living in abject poverty and starvation! An issue your "god" could solve with a thought if he really cared about the human race.

... yes, we need to spread the love and justice inherent in Christianity to more places and more people both at home and abroad.

... but a good start, would not be removing the right to life, of the most vulnerable of human beings ... the unborn.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

In our constitution, the unborn's right to life is secondary to a woman's freedom to travel and to access information about abortion abroad. If their right to life is supposed to be fundamental, we have a funny way of expressing it.

... and the unborn's right to life is also secondary to a woman's life, when it is threatened by the unborn child.
The 8th doesn't give absolute protection to the life of the unborn ... nor indeed should it.

Equally, it shouldn't be removed, thereby totally stripping the right to life from all unborn children.

... so what is your point exactly?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Precisely ... Exodus was then ... a hell on earth ... and this is now ... a much more humane place with the 'leaven' and love of Christianity within it.[/n]:)

Tell that to the billions living in abject poverty and starvation! An issue your "god" could solve with a thought if he really cared about the human race.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
God cannot harden or soften our hearts ... as free-willed beings we are sovereign in the matter of the state of our hearts.
... and yes, terrible atrocities are still committed ... but the World is certainly a much more humane place with the 'leaven' and love of Christianity within it.

Akrasia
Tell that to the book of exodus.

Precisely ... Exodus was then ... a hell on earth ... and this is now ... a much more humane place with the 'leaven' and love of Christianity within it.:)

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

... and are they now going to do an 'about turn' and remove equal rights from unborn children ... rights to their very lives ... which is the most fundamental right of all ... and without which, all other rights are set to naught.

In our constitution, the unborn's right to life is secondary to a woman's freedom to travel and to access information about abortion abroad. If their right to life is supposed to be fundamental, we have a funny way of expressing it.

c_man

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the plot loopholes in this fairytale.

Why didnt frodo and gandalf use those birds and just fly to mordor?

Why didn't the creator of the universe communicate in a way that it was obvious what we should do and not do

I bet your neckbeard grew a mighty two inches writing that post.

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

It wasnt, JC making up stuff again.

It wasn't ... I was just asking a question.
... and if you guys don't know the difference, I wouldn't be embarassing yourselves, by letting everyone know this, if I were you.:eek:

I asked the question here:-
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105835171&postcount=157

We were discussing the law on travelling for euthanasia ... and a link to a case on assisting somebody to travel for euthanasia ... was provided by Harika ... and the case turned out to have been dismissed.
... so I asked the legitimate question "How does this show that somebody can't travel for Euthanasia to another juristiction?"

... of course it didn't ... and rather than admitting his error ... Harika chose to ask "Where Was this stated by Cabaal? " ... when you had nothing to do with it ... and you then chose to badmouth me ... instead of asking Harika, what he was talking about.

Please stick to civil debate ... and leave the personal slurs outside the door.
... doubly so, when they are completely unfounded, as in this case.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

I agree entirely; now is the time for Catholics to do so, and not to be further seduced by the preponderances of excuses of "it's happening anyway/elsewhere" or "it's another's responsibility/choice/blame."

Archbishop Eamon Martin has recently said as much.

Really, the time was 25 years ago, because at least then you could cite 25 years of activism to counter these supposed excuses.

And while I suppose later is better than never, I honestly don't forsee any anyone doing anything about these matters. If the referendum fails, most Catholics will be fine with the status quo. Making your battle cry of "Catholics must do everything they can" a bit hollow.

Akrasia

EirWatchr wrote: »

Well, if you want go that route, none of us were there in person to hear any of what Jesus said, so at least some degree of presumption exists in any Christian following Christ. The apostles were there to hear *all* he said and did, and in the words and language he said it. John 21:25

The tradition & scripture v. sola-scriptura debate (and which texts of church fathers with references to abortion or any other matter are valid) is an old, long, and off-topic one for another thread.

and is it not presumptious of a non-deity to dictate terms and conditions about how God *should* have done things?

I'm just pointing out the plot loopholes in this fairytale.

Why didnt frodo and gandalf use those birds and just fly to mordor?

Why didn't the creator of the universe communicate in a way that it was obvious what we should do and not do

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

God gave free will,
people can do what they want,

62% of this country voted for marriage equality, those fine people exercised free will and granted their fellow men and women equal rights.

... and are they now going to do an 'about turn' and remove equal rights from unborn children ... rights to their very lives ... which is the most fundamental right of all ... and without which, all other rights are set to naught.

... all their pretensions to equality will 'go up in smoke' if they do.

... the 8th is a well-balanced piece of equality legislation.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

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

Murder is unlawful killing. Precisely which laws are you supposing God to have transgressed when you make this charge?

Man's laws (which would be faintly ridiculous)? God's laws (which involve him telling us how we are to deal with each other)?

You'll find, on reflection, that you're trying to pull your argument up by it's own bootstraps.

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

you said yourself that the person exists before conception because god 'knows' them. so if the person exists before conception, than any act that prevents conception is just as harmful to that person than anything that happens between conception and the delivery of a baby.

Your making a leap here. You are supposing that God has destined a particular sperm and egg to act as a bodily vehicle for the person he knows before he knit them together in their mothers womb.

I don't know where you got that idea from but it certainly isn't, as far as I know, in the Bible.

The thread asks the question it asks. There is a biblical basis for supposing man-led abortion contra God's order. Thus I'd be contra abortion.

There is no need for me to deal with speculatives

J C

EirWatchr wrote: »

And also, will the same people who voted for equal rights be equally fine if they then turn and vote to remove a statement of equal rights from the constitution - i.e. the eighth ammendment.

Yes, that is the irony here ... the pseudo-liberals are citing the passing of legislation to produce equality (SSM) ... as a reason for repealing legislation to remove equality (between a mother and her child).

They are obviously liberal ... and equality-minded ... when it suits them ... and not so much, when it doesn't suit them.

J C

Harika wrote: »

Where Was this stated by Cabaal?

Ofc they can travel, but will be stopped when it gets reported.

I asked if anyone was stopped ... and all I heard was what some guard told somebody that they couldn't travel!!

... and if the right to travel was abrogated ... I'm sure that enabling legislation would be passed.

Timberrrrrrrr

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

No divorce, no contraception, no ssm, no abortion.

And yet we have 3 and soon to be the full house

EirWatchr

c_man wrote: »

Do you consider the 38% who voted against, and the ~35% who didn't vote, "unfine" people?

And also, will the same people who voted for equal rights be equally fine if they then turn and vote to remove a statement of equal rights from the constitution - i.e. the eighth ammendment.

EirWatchr

Akrasia wrote: »

Who are you, a non deity, to presume what Jesus believed without having something he said to refer to?

Well, if you want go that route, none of us were there in person to hear any of what Jesus said, so at least some degree of presumption exists in any Christian following Christ. The apostles were there to hear *all* he said and did, and in the words and language he said it. John 21:25

The tradition & scripture v. sola-scriptura debate (and which texts of church fathers with references to abortion or any other matter are valid) is an old, long, and off-topic one for another thread.

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

and is it not presumptious of a non-deity to dictate terms and conditions about how God *should* have done things?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Also drunkards, liars, sorcerers, etc. You know the list.

EirWatchr

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

I agree entirely; now is the time for Catholics to do so, and not to be further seduced by the preponderances of excuses of "it's happening anyway/elsewhere" or "it's another's responsibility/choice/blame."

Archbishop Eamon Martin has recently said as much.

c_man

Cabaal wrote: »

God gave free will,
people can do what they want,

62% of this country voted for marriage equality, those fine people exercised free will and granted their fellow men and women equal rights.

Do you consider the 38% who voted against, and the ~35% of the electorate who didn't vote, "unfine" people?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

No divorce, no contraception, no ssm, no abortion.

Cabaal

Harika wrote: »

Where Was this stated by Cabaal?
.

It wasnt, JC making up stuff again.

Cabaal

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

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

God gave free will,
people can do what they want,

62% of this country voted for marriage equality, those fine people exercised free will and granted their fellow men and women equal rights.

volchitsa

Akrasia wrote: »

you said yourself that the person exists before conception because god 'knows' them. so if the person exists before conception, than any act that prevents conception is just as harmful to that person than anything that happens between conception and the delivery of a baby.

I think that was traditionally one of the religious objections to artificial contraception, and the reason why "natural" family planning was deemed to be acceptable.

So yes, by that logic contraception is little different from abortion, but expect a bit more cherry picking from the various scriptures to land miraculously on whatever answer the poster wanted.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

God. God is entitled to set the t&c's for everyone's life.

God permits our exercise of will. Even if sinfully

I don't see anything in the verse about a personhood being associated with sperm. The person is associated with the foetus however and so my cue from that point. Take up your objection on sperm with someone who holds that view perhaps?

you said yourself that the person exists before conception because god 'knows' them. so if the person exists before conception, than any act that prevents conception is just as harmful to that person than anything that happens between conception and the delivery of a baby.

Akrasia

J C wrote: »

God cannot harden or soften our hearts ... as free-willed beings we are sovereign in the matter of the state of our hearts.
... and yes, terrible atrocities are still committed ... but the World is certainly a much more humane place with the 'leaven' and love of Christianity within it.

Tell that to the book of exodus.

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

The priest....

God. God is entitled to set the t&c's for everyone's life.

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?

God permits our exercise of will. Even if sinfully

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.

I don't see anything in the verse about a personhood being associated with sperm. The person is associated with the foetus however and so my cue from that point. Take up your objection on sperm with someone who holds that view perhaps?