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

J C

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.

The 10 Commandments were given to man to govern relationships between men ... and not with animals, So, it is clear that we are talking about not killing other Human Beings.
Logic and justice implies that we are entitled to defend ourselves and thus 'thou shall not kill' means you shall not kill other Human Beings unless in self defense or in the defense of another Human Being, where no other option is available.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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

They are ... but nobody died, as a result of divorce ... this will not be the case, if the 8th is removed.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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

... it is an objective scientifically verifiable fact that an unborn child is a Human Being ... a legal fiction will need to be created to remove the personhood from unborn children, if they are to be legally killed.
This is necessary, because the laws guaranteeing every person's right to life is grounded on their personhood ... and before an unborn child can be legally killed their personhood must be removed in law.
It is a legal fiction, because an unborn child is truthfully a person ... so the falsehood that it isn't a person has to be created to allow it to be killed.

54and56

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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.

It's totally understandable for a pregnant woman to call her foetus a "baby" as she wants the outcome of the pregnancy to be a baby but that doesn't make calling a foetus a baby any more accurate than calling a tadpole a frog or a caterpillar a butterfly.

Wanting a foetus to be a baby doesn't make it a baby add you can name call and label those using the correct terms "pro abortionists" or whatever you want, it just highlights the vacuous nature of your argument.

54and56

J C wrote: »

Logic and justice implies that we are entitled to defend ourselves and thus 'thou shall not kill' means you shall not kill other Human Beings unless in self defense or in the defense of another Human Being, where no other option is available.

Hilarious for someone taking a religious viewpoint to selectively use logic as a basis for argument here.

54and56

J C wrote: »

They are ... but nobody died, as a result of divorce ... this will not be the case, if the 8th is removed.

Nobody will die if the 8th is removed either. A foetus isn't a person.

uck51js9zml2yt

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Hilarious for someone taking a religious viewpoint to selectively use logic as a basis for argument here.

You assume Christians arent logical! A grave mistake.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

We have been over the reasons for pregnant womens rights to travel werever they please ad nauseum at this stage ... its the same right everyone else enjoys ... and is a matter of both justice and equality that they enjoy these rights.
... and for the removal of any doubt, these rights are specifically enshrined in the Constitution ... and correctly so.

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

Being pregnant is a perfectly natural state of affairs, for a fertile woman and cannot be logically considered to be either cruel or degrading.
As for bodlily autonomy, this right is limited for everybody to the extent that they cannot use their bodily autonomy to harm anybody else.
I cannot use my bodily autonomy to hit you ... because this will harm you ... equally, a woman cannot use her bodily autonomy to harm her unborn child.

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nobody will die if the 8th is removed either. A foetus isn't a person.

A foetus is truthfully and legally a person in Ireland at present ... we will need to create the legal fiction that it isn't a person, if we remove the 8th and want to kill it.

... and I note a strange reluctance to answer my question on where you all stand on the next issue of equality and childrens rights facing the Nation ... equality and the right to life for unborn children?

54and56

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You assume Christians arent logical! A grave mistake.

I assume nothing, to do so makes an ass of u and me.

All religious people without exception suspend logic because "faith" is the wilful suspension of reason and logic. Religion requires the suspension of reason and logic from the cradle to the grave.

Religious people may employ logic selectively. Not doing so exclusively is in fact a grave mistake for them but c'est la vie.

54and56

J C wrote: »

... it is legally a person at present in Ireland ... we will need to create the legal fiction that it isn't a person, if we remove the 8th and want to kill it.

The fact is the constitution currently ascribes an incorrect status to fetuses which repealing the 8th will correct.

Whether the constitution says a foetus is a person or not has zero impact on the facts of the situation.

J C wrote: »

... and I note a strange reluctance to answer my question on where you all stand on the next issue of equality facing the Nation ... equality for unborn children?

That's the first I heard of such a issue facing the nation but nevertheless to answer your question directly, "No" I don't agree with equality for fetuses.

Bubbaclaus

Always found it odd that people referred to a clump of cells as an "unborn child".

I suppose the sperm in my testes is an unborn child too. Kicking me in the bollocks is attempted murder?

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I assume nothing, to do so makes an ass of u and me.

You say that you assume nothing ... and then you go and make unfounded assumptions in the next sentence.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

All religious people without exception suspend logic because "faith" is the wilful suspension of reason and logic. Religion requires the suspension of reason and logic from the cradle to the grave.

The Christian Faith is supported by the logical application of observed phenomena ... and the 'fathers' of practically all modern science disciplines were Christians.
There is a thread running for over 12 years on this forum discussing (in part) this issue ... so lets agree to differ on this ... I'll not call you illogical ... if you do me the same courtesy.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Religious people may employ logic selectively. Not doing so exclusively is in fact a grave mistake for them but c'est la vie.

... and I'll not accuse you of the selective use of logic ... if you also don't engage in such unparliamentary language.

54and56

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Always found it odd that people referred to a clump of cells as an "unborn child".

I suppose the sperm in my testes is an unborn child too. Kicking me in the bollocks is attempted murder?

That's just silly Bubbaclaus, the sperm in your testes are half an unborn child and, once J C has resolved the next great issue of equality facing the nation she will then apply her considerable powers of persuasion and logic to campaign for the ultimate equality issue facing the nation i.e. the equality of male sperm with female ovum and draft a new amendment to the constitution banning the release of any sperm from the male body unless it is for the direct fertilisation of an ovum and classing all w@nking as murder.

Water John

Think you're going back there to, 'Every sperm is sacred'.

The simple logic of what the OP says, is that, a woman, going abroad to have an abortion is, going there to commit murder, same as ISIS volunteers going to Syria, which we made every effort to prevent.
This question has not been answered at any point here.

54and56

J C wrote: »

The Christian Faith is supported by the logical application of observed phenomena

Observed phenomena like people re-growing limbs by any chance?

I'll leave it here

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

That's the first I heard of such a issue facing the nation but nevertheless to answer your question directly, "No" I don't agree with equality for fetuses.

... and so ends the great pretense that the pseudo-liberals genuinely believe in equality ... they are found to actually only be using it as a flag of convenience when it suits them.

... so equality is all important for the relatively trivial matter of whether the state names a piece of paper a 'Marriage Cert' or a 'Civil Partnership Cert' ... but when it comes to the very lives of unborn children ... equality suddenly has nothing to do with it.

Amazing selectivity !!:(

Anyway ... as I genuinely believe in the equality of all persons ... I will be voting to maintain the legal equality of all persons in this state when it comes to the serious matter of life and death.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

Observed phenomena like people re-growing limbs by any chance?

What do you have to see to believe? I don't think it is possible for you, unfortunately.

54and56

Water John wrote: »

Think you're going back there to, 'Every sperm is sacred'.

The simple logic of what the OP says, is that, a woman, going abroad to have an abortion is, going there to commit murder, same as ISIS volunteers going to Syria, which we made every effort to prevent.
This question has not been answered at any point here.

I thought the OP's question was whether Christians could vote for unlimited abortion and that it has in fact been answered many times by many people i.e. yes they "can" vote for unlimited abortion just as the majority of christians (or if not the majority close to half) voted against their stated religions stance on divorce and gay marriage. Whether or not they "should" vote for unlimited abortion is a different question and equally easy to answer. No practising christian should vote for anything which contravenes the rules/commandments of their religion and it's pretty clear christians generally interpret the "thou shalt not kill" commandment as applying to fetuses so they "should not" vote in favour of unlimited abortion.

54and56

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

What do you have to see to believe? I don't think it is possible for you, unfortunately.

Actual evidence maybe and then I don't have to "believe" anything because it would be factually established.

J C

Water John wrote: »

Think you're going back there to, 'Every sperm is sacred'.

The simple logic of what the OP says, is that, a woman, going abroad to have an abortion is, going there to commit murder, same as ISIS volunteers going to Syria, which we made every effort to prevent.
This question has not been answered at any point here.

When all else fails you start strawmanning!!!
Quote:-
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."

For example, I have not acccused any woman of commiting murder ... and specifically in relation to their right to travel, for whatever reason, including to procure abortion, I could not have been more clear that I fully supported that right.

... and as for the 'sacred sperm' ... that is a figment of your very fertile imagination (pun intended)!!!:D

54and56

J C wrote: »

... and so ends the great pretense that the pseudo-liberals genuinely believe in equality ... they are found to actually only be using it as a flag of convenience when it suits them.

... so equality is all important for the relatively trivial matter of whether the state calls a piece of paper a 'Marriage Cert' or a 'Civil Partnership Cert' ... but when it comes to the very lives of unborn children ... equality suddenly has nothing to do with it.

Amazing!!:(

That's because unborn fetuses are not people. What's hard to understand about that? No one I know is pretending otherwise. Human rights apply to actual humans, not fetuses.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Of course it's murder.

54and56

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Of course it's murder.

It's as close to murder as blowing a load during anal sex is half a murder

Mmmmm, time for bed :eek:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

J C wrote: »

... and so ends the great pretense that the pseudo-liberals genuinely believe in equality ... they are found to actually only be using it as a flag of convenience when it suits them.

... so equality is all important for the relatively trivial matter of whether the state names a piece of paper a 'Marriage Cert' or a 'Civil Partnership Cert' ... but when it comes to the very lives of unborn children ... equality suddenly has nothing to do with it.

Amazing!!:(

JC, I am a committed Christian. I am 74 next month. I looked at this thread thinking it would have a good philosophical discussion on the matter before the referendum. I have avoided too much active participation because of the very strong and unbending stances on both sides. But I have to say you have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian right now. We need balanced, factual debate and an opportunity for all sides to air their opinions, but you are shouting dictatorial ultra right wing views as being Christianity. I'm afraid your Christianity is not my Christianity. We must live in a civil state. We must have civil laws. We cannot have a country ruled by biblical laws.

J C

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

JC, I am a committed Christian. I am 74 next month. I looked at this thread thinking it would have a good philosophical discussion on the matter before the referendum. I have avoided too much active participation because of the very strong and unbending stances on both sides. But I have to say you have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian right now. We need balanced, factual debate and an opportunity for all sides to air their opinions, but you are shouting dictatorial ultra right wing views as being Christianity. I'm afraid your Christianity is no my Christianity. We must live in a civil state. We must have civil laws. We cannot have a country ruled by biblical laws.

Nobody is asking for a country ruled by Biblical Law.

There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity why we shouldn't countenance the intentional killing of unborn children except in very exceptional circumstances ... and all of these issues have been freely and civilly debated on this thread.
None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

If you look at the number of posters that seem to be 'yes' and 'no' I'd say they are pretty balanced in number and debating ability ... and the thread, despite being focussed on the Christian dimension to abortion (it is on a Christianity forum after all) has encompassed all views right across the spectrum including the legal and the philosophical and irreligious viewpoints, as well.

I am an ordinary Christian man, so I fully understand the issues that can arise, where abortion may seem the solution ... but for all of the reasons debated on this thread I don't think that it can be justified except in exceptional situations.

I fully agree that we must live in a civil state under civil laws ... and the 8th amendment is a civil law ... that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil process.

I regret that the thread hasn't lived up to your expectations ... but I would point out that I have made my points in a civil and respectful manner.

54and56

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

JC, I am a committed Christian. I am 74 next month. I looked at this thread thinking it would have a good philosophical discussion on the matter before the referendum. I have avoided too much active participation because of the very strong and unbending stances on both sides. But I have to say you have made me ashamed to say I'm a Christian right now. We need balanced, factual debate and an opportunity for all sides to air their opinions, but you are shouting dictatorial ultra right wing views as being Christianity. I'm afraid your Christianity is no my Christianity. We must live in a civil state. We must have civil laws. We cannot have a country ruled by biblical laws.

Well said Lisa Billions Gum,

People should be free to practise their religion without interference but equally religion, regardless of which brand it is, should impose it's values on others of different religions or none.

The ban on abortion was inserted in to the constitution due to the overwhelming influence the catholic church had on the country at the time the constitution was drafted.

Thankfully we've moved on and bit by bit the influence of religion is being removed from our laws and being replaced by civil laws.

Removing the ban on abortion will have zero impact on christians who wish to practise their faith, they can simply choose not to have an abortion.

54and56

J C wrote: »

Nobody is asking for a country ruled by Biblical Law.

There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity why we shouldn't countenance the intentional killing of unborn children fetuses except in very exceptional circumstances ... and all of these issues have been freely and civilly debated on this thread.
None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

... and an unborn child fetus that is killed, as a result of the removal of the 8th ... will be clinically and factually dead ... and religion has nothing to do with this stubborn fact.

There ya go again mislabelling fetuses as children.

No matter how often you say it it still won't make fetuses children anymore than caterpillars are butterflies or tadpoles are frogs and to advance your whole argument on such a factually incorrect basis highlights how subjective rather than objective your argument is.

Mrs OBumble

I'm finding this talk of unrestricted access to abortion hilarious.

We already have unrestricted access to hip-replacements and to cosmetic surgery.

That doesn't mean everyone who wants one will get one. In some cases, the doctor will say "sorry, there would be no clinical benefit for you in having a XYZ procedure". In others, the wait to see a consultant - yes even in the private sector - is so long that treatment availability is very limited, even though it's legal.

Even if the 8th is repealed, I predict that access to induced abortion will be far more limited than anyone expects.

FWIW, I will be voting for repeal, based on minimising harm and having no real effect on the rate of induced abortions being done to Irish women: all it will change is the place they happen in.

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Well said Srameen,

People should be free to practise their religion without interference but equally religion, regardless of which brand it is, should impose it's values on others of different religions or none.

The ban on abortion was inserted in to the constitution due to the overwhelming influence the catholic church had on the country at the time the constitution was drafted.

Thankfully we've moved on and bit by bit the influence of religion is being removed from our laws and being replaced by civil laws.

Removing the ban on abortion will have zero impact on christians who wish to practise their faith, they can simply choose not to have an abortion.

Says the guy who posted this piece of wisdom ... presumably believing it to be some kind of contribution to the debate!!

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It's as close to murder as blowing a load during anal sex is half a murder

Mmmmm, time for bed :eek:

54and56

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

Which one?

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

There ya go again mislabelling fetuses as children.

No matter how often you say it it still won't make fetuses children anymore than caterpillars are butterflies or tadpoles are frogs and to advance your whole argument on such a factually incorrect basis highlights how subjective rather than objective your argument is.

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.
... and they are legally persons in this country, unless and until this status is stripped away from them by the removal of the 8th.