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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.:)

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Bubbaclaus

J C wrote: »

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.

I assume you were a major supporter of the yes vote in the SSM referendum then given the point you are trying to make here?

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

It's Human nature to blame somebody else for our own shorcomings ... and if your're an anti-theist ... then God is the perfect candidate to blame ... and heap everyones sins onto.
Ironically, Jesus Christ doesn't mind this ... He actually has already paid the price for everyones blame and sins ... and all they need to do is reach out and ask Him ... and He will Save them.
What a magnificent loving God He is and what an amazing friend we have in Jesus.:)

J C

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I assume you were a major supporter of the yes vote in the SSM referendum then given the point you are trying to make here?

Yes, I see no issue with the state providing the same services to everyone on an equal basis.
... and now a question for you ... presuming you to be a supporter of equality for SSM ... will you also be supporting equality for tbe unborn in the forthcoming referendum?

... or will you be doing an 'about turn' and not supporting equality, in this case?

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Yes man could remobe the suffering of billions if man was that way inclined, unfortunately man.is not that way Inclined due to greed.

"God: on the other hand is supposed to love am.of his creations yet chooses to let children starve to death or die from cancer simply because he can.

Bubbaclaus

J C wrote: »

What a magnificent loving God He is and what an amazing friend we have in Jesus.:)

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Similar to Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans.

Bubbaclaus

J C wrote: »

Yes, I saw no issue with the state providing the same services to everyone on an equal basis.

But how does that tie in with the very basis of this thread. How can a Christian vote for marriage equality?

c_man

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Similar to Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans.

I'd put good money on you not having read the Bible. Come on, be honest.

Bubbaclaus wrote:

But how does that tie in with the very basis of this thread. How can a Christian vote for marriage equality?

Equality?

I guess you mean gay marriage. I suppose by ticking the box on the ballot? I could imagine Mormon derivates (who consider themselves Christians) laugh at the idea of someone using "equality" there given that polygamy is banned by the State.

J C

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

All quite correct ... everyone has an instinctive (God-given) conscience that allows them to determine what is right and what is wrong ... and this is independent of religion (or lack thereof).

100% in agreement with Prof Dawkins on this fact.;):)

J C

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

But how does that tie in with the very basis of this thread. How can a Christian vote for marriage equality?

All that was at issue was marriage equality in the eyes of the State ... why would a Christian have a problem with that ... live and let live ... and all that.

The removal of the 8th will not be a situation of live and let live ... it will be as situation of live and let die.

Bubbaclaus

c_man wrote: »

Equality? I guess you mean gay marriage. I suppose by ticking the box on the ballot? I could imagine Mormon derivates (who consider themselves Christians) laugh at the idea of someone using "equality" there given that polygamy is banned by the State.

Come off it with the 'confused' face. It was a marriage equality referendum and was repeatedly referred to as such. I was proud we voted yes to equality that day, but a bit dismayed that 30% of this nation are against equality.

J C

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Similar to Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans.

I think that we may have read a different Bible, allright.:)

... or if we didn't ... we certainly must have read it differently.:D

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Bubbaclaus wrote:

I think we must have read a different bible. I read the one about the genocidal warmonger that demands worship or else you will be sentenced to the fires of hell.

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

J C

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Come off it with the 'confused' face. It was a marriage equality referendum and was repeatedly referred to as such. I was proud we voted yes to equality that day, but a bit dismayed that 30% of this nation are against equality.

... all very laudable.
... now where do you stand on the next issue of equality facing the Nation ... equality for unborn children?

54and56

J C wrote: »

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

Three things:

1. It's very simple all right and very clear until you start to add qualifications to suit your own viewpoint. If it was read as simply as it's written no christian would ever kill any living thing and I've yet to meet a christian who hasn't killed something.

2. Christians are as free to vote for abortion as they did for divorce.

3. Defining a foetus incapable of independent life as a living or human being is just religiously motivated nonsense.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

... 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?

My point is that if the unborn's right to life is supposedly fundamental, it's odd that our Constitution puts it below being able to get on a plane or a boat or looking up information about abortion clinics abroad.

If we can put those above the unborn's rights, I see no reason why we can't do the same with a woman's right to bodily autonomy, or her right to be free of cruel and degrading treatment.

uck51js9zml2yt

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Three things:

1. It's very simple all right and very clear until you start to add qualifications to suit your own viewpoint. If it was read as simply as it's written no christian would ever kill any living thing and I've yet to meet a christian who hasn't killed something.

2. Christians are as free to vote for abortion as they did for divorce.

3. Defining a foetus incapable of independent life as a living or human being is just religiously motivated nonsense.

You're absolutely right. Christians are free to vote as they want.

Since when has any pregnant lady called the child she was carrying a ""foetus" and not her baby?

It's only the pro abortionists that are calling the child a foetus and saying it's not a child.

If we say it long enough and loud enough, enough will believe it and vote to repeal

No different to the "equality" referendum which was really to give homosexuals the right to marry. Let's call it what it was. For the record, I voted against it as it redefined what God had called marriage. I went with His definition! A small group, shouting loudly enough and shouting down those who dared hold a different point of view, who in the end won.