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: »

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 that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil process.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.

Please list what these exceptional situations are in your opinion

54and56

J C wrote: »

A child is a child of a parent, whatever age (or stage of development) the child may be.

Nope, that's why a foetus is called a fetus and not a child and why the birth cert records the date of birth and not the date of conception.

The emotional language you use doesn't (thankfully) change the facts.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Lisa Billions Gum wrote:

And my God said "Love your enemies"

How could God's enemy, ie. satan and his cohorts, enter the Kingdom of God?

J C

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

And my God said "Love your enemies"

Amen to that.

... and do good to those who hate you ... Amen to that as well.
... but this doesn't meant that you have to agree with them!!!:D

... and honour the Lord your God with all your heart and all your mind and all your soul ... Amen to that as well.

You're a good guy Lisa Billions Gum.:)

... and as you are a Christian, we both have the same God.

... so we're not as different as you may think.

J C

Lisa Billions Gum wrote: »

You see JC, I don't react well to somebody shouting at me. It never implies reasoned debate.

I never shouted at you or anybody else.

Shouting is using CAPITAL LETTERS ... embolding text is used for clarity and emphasis.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

And my God said "Love your enemies"

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Don't be lazy, attack or challenge the post, not the poster.

I was attacking one of your posts, by contrasting it with another one of your posts.

Nothing personal in it at all.:)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

J C wrote: »

...There are legal, scientific, logical and equality reasons as well as simple humanity ...

None of these reasons are religious reasons per se.

... so I fully understand the issues that can arise...

... and the 8th amendment is a civil law ... that correctly must be repealed (or not) by a civil...

You see JC, I don't react well to somebody shouting at me. It never implies reasoned debate.

J C

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

A child is a child of a parent, whatever age (or stage of development) the child may be.

J C

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

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.

The difference is that you will be personally approving all abortions that occur following the repeal of the 8th.

At present, you bear no moral responsibility for what other people are doing.

If you are happy that abortions are morally correct, (for the reasons you cite) then you should have no issues with this.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Je_suis_Jean wrote:

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

I think what you are saying is completely wrong. But I can't change your mind, if the above is what you believe.

54and56

J C wrote: »

They are technically children, at the foetal stage of development.

Nope, they are fetuses with the potential to become babies who may become children who may become adolescents who may become adults but that does not make them babies, children, adolescents or adults. They are just fetuses.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

A foetus is truthfully and legally a person in Ireland at present ...

The Supreme Court is due to hear a case about this next month, but I guess we can tell them not to bother, because Judge JC has already decided. :rolleyes:

A foetus is not legally a person. If it were, then every pregnant women would be able to claim child benefit. Every miscarriage would have to have a death certificate issued. The act of an illegal abortion would have to be regarded as a homicide and have penalties of up to life imprisonment. So, no, a foetus is not legally a person.

In future, please do some proper research before making wild claims about what the law says, because it's doing your argument absolutely no favours.

J C wrote: »

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.

See above.

54and56

J C wrote: »

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

Don't be lazy, attack or challenge the post, not the poster.

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.

54and56

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Anyone who does not worship God is His enemy.

Which one?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Of course it's murder.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.