Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

WhiteRoses wrote:

I actually couldnâ€™t give a <snip>. You are so self absorbed that you donâ€™t realize or respect other people have different beliefs.

That is the freedom of choice that God gave you. You have made your choice.

jeonahr

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Abortion is a heinous offence against Almighty God, and unless repented of, such people shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

None of us are God and have no right to judge others.

SuperSean11

J C wrote: »

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.

The sixth commandment in its entirety is actually Thou shalt not kill the groove, dj.

Cabaal wrote:

I suppose those that wear condoms don't realise the enormity of the act whey they defy god by stopping sperm also, how dare they.

Yes. Another heinous crime. People must repent of their sins now.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

If you do not understand what I am saying, you will be excluded from the Kingdom of God, and suffer eternal dam nation. Wise up.

I actually couldn’t give a <snip> if I don’t. You are so self absorbed that you don’t realize or respect other people have different beliefs.

smacl wrote:

Which is your firmly held religious belief and a good reason why you should not have an abortion. It is not a good reason for anyone who does not share your beliefs. To suggest otherwise is to promote theocracy. You do not act in accordance with other people's religious beliefs, why should they act in accordance with yours?

If you do not understand what I am saying, you will be excluded from the Kingdom of God, and suffer eternal dam nation. Wise up.

mcfitness20

this current pope is destroying the church, worldwide

smacl

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Abortion is a heinous offence against Almighty God, and unless repented of, such people shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

Which is your firmly held religious belief and a good reason why you should not have an abortion. It is not a good reason for anyone who does not share your beliefs. To suggest otherwise is to promote theocracy. You do not act in accordance with other people's religious beliefs, why should they act in accordance with yours?

WhiteRoses wrote:

Whatâ€™s more important, the health and happiness of your sister/mother/daughter/wife/friend, or your fear of upsetting the almighty lord???

The health and happiness of your sister is as nothing compared to the loss you would suffer if you are excluded from the Kingdom of God.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Abortion is a heinous offence against Almighty God, and unless repented of, such people shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

What’s more important, the health and happiness of your sister/mother/daughter/wife/friend, or your fear of upsetting the almighty lord???

WhiteRoses wrote:

Another poster who clearly doesn't trust women to know their own minds.

Abortion is a heinous offence against Almighty God, and unless repented of, such people shall not enter the Kingdom of God.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I didn't say that there was anything mentally wrong with these women. I said that they didn't realise the enormity of the act of abortion.

Another poster who clearly doesn't trust women to know their own minds.

Cabaal wrote:

so you're trying to suggest there's something perhaps mentally wrong with women who don't regret aborting a fetus?

I didn't say that there was anything mentally wrong with these women. I said that they didn't realise the enormity of the act of abortion.

Cabaal

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

The women that don't regret their abortion are the ones who don't realise the enormity of the act.

so you're trying to suggest there's something perhaps mentally wrong with women who don't regret aborting a fetus?

I suppose those that wear condoms don't realise the enormity of the act whey they defy god by stopping sperm also, how dare they.

The women that don't regret their abortion are the ones who don't realise the enormity of the act.

keano_afc wrote: »

There's a great book called Birth Equality by Nick Park that I would recommend to everyone, not just Christians.

You don't have to be a person of faith to know that electively ending the life of a human being foetus is wrong.

Fixed that for ya. Now at least your point is accurately made if nevertheless untrue.

keano_afc

There's a great book called Birth Equality by Nick Park that I would recommend to everyone, not just Christians.

You don't have to be a person of faith to know that electively ending the life of a human being is wrong.

Cabaal

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

and there are many women that have abortions that don't regret it.

What you are proposing is "because some might be abused by the system means nobody should have access to health care". A rather silly outlook.

You can't apply a blanket viewpoint to abortion like that, its not a black and white issue neither are women's decisions to have abortions...its not that straight forward. There are numerous factors and several thousand shades of gray.

Your blanket viewpoint is as silly as saying all priests abuse children, the numbers speak for themselves and as such priests should be banned from going near children because they will abuse them.

Clearly not all priests abuse children, it would be idiotic to say so. If abuses "might" occur then the best process is to put checks in place to ensure a system cannot be abused with reporting etc.

At the end of the day, banning abortions in Ireland doesn't solve anything...it just exports the issue to the UK.

NuMarvel

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

The number of women who regret their abortion is less than 5%. So it is fair to say that women make the right decisions for their circumstances, because the vast majority who have abortions feel it was the right decision.

This doesn't preclude us from taking steps to reduce the number of women who regret their abortions or who feel they had no other choice, but banning abortion isn't a proportionate measure. And as I pointed it in my previous post, nor is it an effective one.

Cabaal

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

In a word, contraception. Freely available contraception for women of all ages who are sexually active which didn't impose a mortal sin on the user would be a good start but I don't expect that to get much traction in this thread :rolleyes:

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

EirWatchr wrote: »

Yes. All statuary law is founded from prevalent social mores.

Excellent, so you agree that formal constitutional laws which govern society are man made and reflect the "prevalent social mores" so cannot therefore be set in stone forever as anything "prevalent" by definition changes and that is exactly what the process of removing the 8th amendment will achieve, just as amendments to allow divorce and marriage equality reflected the progressive social mores now (thankfully) prevalent in our increasingly enlightened society.

EirWatchr wrote: »

What Irish law currently gives an individual citizen, on their own, the legal power to permit or deny personhood?

AFAIK no Irish laws including the constitution refer in any way to the term "personhood" including the 8th amendment which grants a restricted/qualified right to life to the unborn "as far as practicable".

BTW, isn't it inconvenient for your argument how the 8th amendment which you and others are so keen to defend simply calls the fetus "the unborn" and doesn't use the incorrect and emotionally loaded term "child"?

NaFirinne wrote: »

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

How do you make sweeping statements like "there are women that feel they have no choice but to go for abortion" without referencing any sort of credible evidence in support of your statement?

If with the 8th amendment in place your statement is true how would retaining it help in any way?

I don't know a single person aged 15 to 45 who doesn't have a smartphone or access to an internet browser somewhere. What exactly is stopping women who have the ability to access info on abortion from having access to basic info on alternatives to abortion?

EirWatchr

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Don't you understand that the status of personhood in law is already conferred by a another person or group of persons i.e. those who drafted and implemented the constitution?

Yes. All statutory law is founded from prevalent social mores.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

What status in law is not granted or permitted by the drafting of legislation by "some other person"?

What Irish law currently gives an individual citizen, on their own, the legal power to permit or deny the status of personhood, and so confer humanity?

NaFirinne wrote: »

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

You mustn't trust women if you feel they could be encouraged to go through with an abortion they don't want. I trust women to make an informed decision for themselves.

However, to play devils advocate, you could argue that the church and pregnancy support staff with a pro life agenda encourage women to keep babies they do not want.
In fact, there was a recent case where a support service that was meant to be impartial, advised an undercover journalist that if she were to have an abortion, she was at risk of breast cancer and of becoming a child abuser later in life.
It frightens me to think advice like this is given to vulnerable women having crisis pregnancies.

NaFirinne

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I believe each woman in the world has her own best interests at heart when making decisions that will effect the course of the rest of her life.

She wants the best life for herself, physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, in every possible way.
I trust women to make the best decision for themselves. If that decision be abortion, well, so be it.

A law cannot cover every single eventuality and circumstance that we as humans find ourselves in.
Therefore I believe we should leave the decision up to the the person it impacts most: the mother, and if applicable, the father.

This is not entirely correct.

There are women that feel that they have no choice but to go for abortion as they are encouraged to do so and not given viable alternatives

then when they have the abortion they regret it.

abortion is one of the most evil acts the world has yet to introduce.

The sheer numbers speak for itself.

NaFirinne wrote: »

We must find better ways to solve issues of consent and maternity care then resorting to joining the many other countries that partake in the slaughter of the most innocent -

over 1.6 million unborn babies slaughtered so far this year - that's 15 days -- Can you not see there is something really wrong in the world that kills this many unborn babies?

Abortion does not have women best interests at heart.

I believe each woman in the world has her own best interests at heart when making decisions that will effect the course of the rest of her life.

She wants the best life for herself, physically, mentally, emotionally, financially, in every possible way.
I trust women to make the best decision for themselves. If that decision be abortion, well, so be it.

A law cannot cover every single eventuality and circumstance that we as humans find ourselves in.
Therefore I believe we should leave the decision up to the the person it impacts most: the mother, and if applicable, the father.

NuMarvel

EirWatchr wrote: »

To take the position that all unborn do not have the status of personhood (which the full repeal - not alteration - of the eighth would signify) has the consequence that personhood (i.e. humanity) in law then becomes something that is conferred with the permission of some other person (or group of persons).

You do realise that the thing that protects this supposed personhood, i.e. the 8th, was itself conferred with the permission of a group of people, aka voters in a referendum.

You can't complain about that mechanism just because it's doing something you don't like.

Mrs OBumble

J C wrote: »

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.

Nope.

I still think that in the vast majority of cases, abortion is not the least-harm approach, so is wrong.

And I'll have no more moral responsibility for the actions of women who do have abortions than the pilots, bus-drivers and postal-delivery workers who currently assist women to have abortions.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

The harm is identifiable. The belief that, because of the harm, the act is wrong or bad or wicked is, well, a belief.

No, this is self evidently not true. Can you name a single organized society (i.e. not in the throes of collapse of some sort) in which their own definition of murder was considered morally neutral or even good?

The concept of murder as inherently harmful and needing to be prevented or sanctioned predates most existing religions. It certainly predates Christianity by many many centuries.

Well, can I ask what would make a belief a religious belief?

Concerning moral issues, it is one which is underpinned by religious texts but which unlike murder, is not necessarily shared by other equally moral (by their own understanding of that word, for simplicity) human societies.

Divorce for instance has been banned or tolerated, sometimes even forced, by different religious groups. Murder, as I say, never has, though of course some groups encourage "legal" killings, sanctioned by their religious texts. But then it's not murder.

People can argue that killing is right or wrong; in fact, we have the term "murder" for killings that we believe to be wrong, so you're relying on belief in the very act of using the word "murder". And you can certainly claim that a particular killing is bad or wrong according to your beliefs; in fact, that's the only rational basis on which you can make such an argument.

We ban lots of things on the basis that they are "harmful to society", and while there's a distinction between those who will only recognise harm to identifiable individuals as a proper basis for legal bans versus those who will recognise harm to the community, that is certainly not a religious/nonn-religious distinction; it's an individualist/communitarian distinction.

It may be true that religious thinkers/believers are more likely to find themselves on the communitarian side of that particular debate - religions tend to emphasis communal relationships and the signficance of the community, and someone who is drawn to religion is also likely to be drawn to communitarian rather than individualistic thinking in politics. But that is not enough to make communitarian politics "theocratic".

You can't demonstrate theocracy simply by showing that a particular view, reflected in legislation, is held by religious people.

Actually yes it is, because without those religious texts, reasonable people could come to a different moral opinion about the issue.

As I say, that's not the case for murder. It is, for abortion and divorce.

You seem to see theocracy as an all or nothing concept, but I said it was a step towards that, I wouldn't say that one single religion-based law,such as a ban on divorce or on contraception would suffice to describe a country as a theocracy.

But put a few of them together, and yes, you're getting there.