Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Cabaal wrote: »

I'll take my chances, just like the humans for the 50k years before me have taken their chances and have been just fine.

Been just fine? Evidence from beyond the grave?

Peregrinus

Delirium wrote: »

Any evidence to support this claim?

JC is correct, I think.

The Abortion Act 1967 s. 1 provides a defence to a doctor who terminates a pregnancy -

(a) if continuing the pregnancy presents a greater health risk to the woman (or to one of her other children) than terminating it, and the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 (originally 28) weeks; or

(b) if termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the woman; or

(c) if continuing the pregnancy presents a greater risk to the life of the woman than terminating it; or

(d) if there is a substantial risk that if the child were borne it would be seriously handicapped.

Only circumstance (a) is subject to an explicit time limit. 95% of abortions are performed under circumstance (a). About 2% are carried out in circumstance (e), and about one-fifth of those - 0.4% of the total - relate to Down Syndrome.

When the Act was passed, the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 was already in force, and operated to set a limit to abortions in circumstances (b), (c) and (d); it meant that an abortion could not be performed in those circumstances once the child was "capable of being born alive" (which of course was a matter of medical judgment, and which depended on the state of medical technology/practice with respect to neonatal care).

However further law changes in 1990 removed this restriction, and since then abortion under conditions (b), (c) and (d) has been lawful at at any point.

However there's a couple of qualifications that should be mentioned.

- Of the 5% of abortions that are carried out under conditions (b), (c) and (d). the substantial majority are carried out within the 24-week time limit in any case. 0.1% of all abortions take place after 24 weeks.

- This is largely because people who do not wish to be pregnant do not wait to get abortions; they get them early. It's also because few doctors are willing to perform very late abortions, and those who are will usually only do so in very extreme circumstances.

- In short, very late abortions are tragedies for all concerned; they nearly always in involve a wanted pregnancy which has developed in a disastrous fashion.

- While late abortion of a Down Syndrome child is lawful it is extremely rare. The condition is typically detected by amniocentesis between 15 and 20 weeks into pregnancy and, if a termination is to follow, it follows well within 24 weeks.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Been just fine? Evidence from beyond the grave?

There's no evidence to suggest they haven't been just fine. Unless you have something?

NuMarvel

Peregrinus wrote: »

- While late abortion of a Down Syndrome child is lawful it is extremely rare. The condition is typically detected by amniocentesis between 15 and 20 weeks into pregnancy and, if a termination is to follow, it follows well within 24 weeks.

To add to this, in 2016, only 21 abortions for Down's Syndrome were on or after the 24th week. That's less than 3% of abortions for DS, and 0.01% of all abortions in England & Wales.

In any case, it's all moot, because the Committee recommendations don't include disability as a ground for abortion in Ireland, and I don't see it likely that the Oireachtas would go beyond the recommendations when legislating after a referendum. Women who have abortions for this reason will continue to travel overseas, as at least 45 of them did in 2016.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I am speaking the Truth. Please listen.

No offence, but you post like prototype artificial intelligence. A Roman Catholic bot' could post the bulk of what you post, the AI element merely adding a hint of responding contextually to posts.

What's there to listen to? There is no argumentation involved in what you say - so you can't appeal on the basis of that.

I can only presume you believe that blindly declaring what you believe to be the case will attract supernatural sauce from on high, adding efficacy to what must otherwise be consider bald, dogmatic claims.

The world is full of bald, dogmatic claims (e.g. there is no God but Allah), so nothing for anybody, but the most impressionable, to listen to.

Delirium

cnocbui wrote: »

There is no god, and judging by what you have chosen to focus on, if there were, it would make Trump look grown up and mature by comparison.

MOD NOTE

1. Please don't derail the thread.

2. also please familiarise yourself with the charter, particularly the following:

Arguments such as "There is no God, therefore..." or "The Bible is full of contradictions, therefore..." will not be tolerated. Don't start off with a conclusion which your audience is bound to disagree with!

Thanks for your attention.

Nick Park

As for the question in the OP, it all depends on how you define 'Christian'. People who call themselves Christians have managed to commit all kinds of atrocities in the last 2000 years, so voting for abortion won't be a problem for such 'Christians'.

However, if we're talking about Christians in the sense of those who genuinely take the teachings of Jesus seriously as a guide for their lives, then I don't see how supporting the taking of human life can be justified in any but the most extreme cases (eg to save the mother's life).

I could not vote for unlimited abortion for the same reason that I couldn't vote for the death penalty, or support military warfare. I believe killing people is wrong.

This is not a case of wanting the law of the land to enforce my religious views on others, as I support the right of people to legally commit a multitude of acts or behaviour that are contrary to my morality. But I do believe that one of the proper functions of the State is to protect people's life and liberty. So I will vote against unlimited abortion for the same reason that I would vote against legalised slavery or people trafficking, would vote against the abuse or exploitation of children, and would vote against any infringement of people's rights to exercise freedom of religion or to restrict their freedom to reject religion.

Abortion is murder from a christian perspective - Abortion is the biggest single killer in the world today.

How rotten has today's society got that we think it's a good thing to slaughter so many unborn babies.

People have been fooled into believing abortion is about women's health and benefits society.

Any peace we have in the world today has been brought about by christian way of live which is based on love for all and peace - History has shown when the world falls into evil as many of the civilizations have before us they don't last too long afterwards.

Revelation talks about the world falling into evil like it was before the flood - slaughtering the most innocent - what is more evil then that.

Delirium wrote: »

Any evidence to support this claim?

People who blindly believe things never need evidence Delirium. It's a fundamental enabler for why suicide bombers do what they do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Been just fine? Evidence from beyond the grave?

Has there ever been any evidence from beyond the grave of anything other than you're dead?

Bill Burr eloquently puts it as follows:-

<snip>

Edit: Apologies to anyone who was offended by the swear word in the original version of this which has now been removed.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

People who blindly believe things never need evidence Delirium. It's a fundamental enabler for why suicide bombers do what they do.

If you say you have faith in someone - you already know they exist.

Faith for a christian is trusting in Christ completely and following his teachings.

Too quote Jeffrey Small -

"The path to salvation is more like an awakening, an understanding, and an experience of what is already here but we cannot see.

The spiritual path (prayer, meditation, fasting, worship, etc.) becomes a mechanism to peal back the onion layers of who we are and what we think the world around us is, so that we can examine the power of God within ourselves, within others, and within existence itself.

Salvation is an opening of our eyes and hearts, a new way of seeing the universe"

Delirium

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

People who blindly believe things never need evidence Delirium. It's a fundamental enabler for why suicide bombers do what they do.

After reading the informative post Peregrinus made with regard to JCs post, I don't think that's really fair on JC tbh.

Just because another poster is arguing for the other side of the topic doesn't mean we should instantly dismiss something they post.

Nick Park wrote: »

So I will vote against unlimited abortion for the same reason that I would vote against legalised slavery or people trafficking, would vote against the abuse or exploitation of children, and would vote against any infringement of people's rights to exercise freedom of religion or to restrict their freedom to reject religion.

Serious question which may be viewed by the more dogmatic posters as inflammatory but I can only promise it's not:-

Would you support a call for legislation which outlawed the indoctrination of children into religion before they are mature enough to make their own decision on what they want to believe in?

We protect children from all kinds of influences which they are not mature enough to decide for themselves but we somehow feel it's ok for them to be exposed to a constant barrage via christian schools and mass on Sunday etc which tells them that they are born sinners and unless they repent they will feel the wrath of god and spent eternity in hell blah blah blah.

If children were exposed to such messages in an any other context society would be up in arms about child abuse but when the label "religion" is applied to it apparently it's fine.

What do you think?

SuperSean11

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Animals don't have souls such as humans. But they enter Heaven because Christ loves them.

My cats say they have souls

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Serious question which may be viewed by the more dogmatic posters as inflammatory but I can only promise it's not:-

Would you support a call for legislation which outlawed the indoctrination of children into religion before they are mature enough to make their own decision on what they want to believe in?

We protect children from all kinds of influences which they are not mature enough to decide for themselves but we somehow feel it's ok for them to be exposed to a constant barrage via christian schools and mass on Sunday etc which tells them that they are born sinners and unless they repent they will feel the wrath of god and spent eternity in hell blah blah blah.

If children were exposed to such messages in an any other context society would be up in arms about child abuse but when the label "religion" is applied to it apparently it's fine.

What do you think?

I think your drifting far from the topic, if you want to discuss catholic education of children which you seem to be referring too. I'm sure there are other threads on that or just create your own.

This is about abortion and how can someone be a christian and still support abortion.

NaFirinne wrote: »

I think your drifting far from the topic, if you want to discuss catholic education of children which you seem to be referring too. I'm sure there are other threads on that or just create your own.

This is about abortion and how can someone be a christian and still support abortion.

Three things:-

1. I was responding to an issue Nick Park raised.

2. Many posters but particularly J C and owenybaloney seem to be on a mission to promote religious dogma here and warning us all we'll burn in hell if we don't repent blah blah blah which seems further removed from the issue of abortion than my response to Nick Park's assertion that in addition to voting against permitting abortion on the grounds that it was child abuse he would also vote for anything else which reduced child abuse in society so I therefore asked him a logical follow up question relating to whether he agrees that the indoctrination of children is, almost uniquely in society, one of the last bastions of permitted child abuse which should be legislated against.

3. My reference was not exclusively to the catholic indoctrination of children. To make such a singular point would be silly but for clarity let me assert that the banning of childhood indoctrination into religion should not be limited to catholics but should apply to all religions. Why can't religions wait until kids are old enough to make up their own minds?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Three things:-

1. I was responding to an issue Nick Park raised.

2. Many posters but particularly J C and owenybaloney seem to be on a mission to promote religious dogma here and warning us all we'll burn in hell if we don't repent blah blah blah which seems further removed from the issue of abortion than my response to Nick Park's assertion that in addition to voting against permitting abortion on the grounds that it was child abuse he would also vote for anything else which reduced child abuse in society so I therefore asked him a logical follow up question relating to whether he agrees that the indoctrination of children is, almost uniquely in society, one of the last bastions of permitted child abuse which should be legislated against.

3. My reference was not exclusively to the catholic indoctrination of children. To make such a singular point would be silly but for clarity let me assert that the banning of childhood indoctrination into religion should not be limited to catholics but should apply to all religions. Why can't religions wait until kids are old enough to make up their own minds?

Do you realize that without Christians, civilization as we know it would not have the current education it has?

Educating children about God is not abuse.

The primary educator for any Child must be the parent as such educating them physically, mentally and spiritually is the basics.

The world has always tried to destroy Christianity - through banning christian education - banning the right to worship - to torturing and killing Christians.

Though many times society have come to the brink of extinction it always falls to small group following God to bring it back.

1.7 million unborn babies slaughtered so far this year - People will have a lot to answer for following after such an evil.

EirWatchr

NaFirinne wrote: »

If you say you have faith in someone - you already know they exist.

And if you say you doubt someone - you already know they exist.

Substituting "doubt" for "faith" in that poster also produces a valid set of statements.

Cabaal

NaFirinne wrote: »

Do you realize that without Christians, civilization as we know it would not have the current education it has?
.

Thats a rather big claim,
Especially when you can pretty put the invention of Algebra, decent maps etc were created by Muslims. The first university was also founded by a Muslim.

Without Christians somebody else that was non christian just would have invented stuff instead at some point.

If you want to play the how great Christians are card then perhaps you may also want to play the how bad Christians have been in relation to suppression of knowledge too.

We could just as easily claim that without Christians as a planet we could be much further along too and we would be a much richer planet for all the various cultures we would have that weren't wiped out in the name of spreading the word of Jesus....the America's comes to mind off hand.

Though many times society have come to the brink of extinction it always falls to small group following God to bring it back.

Oh please, do give us examples of societies that almost went extinct but were "saved" by christian god.
While you're at that I'm sure somebody else can come up with societies destroyed in the name of the same god.

Educating children about God is not abuse.

That depends on an outsiders viewpoint I suppose,
Would you consider educating a child on the Church of Satan abuse?

Oh dear, is this all you have left?

NaFirinne wrote: »

Do you realize that without Christians, civilization as we know it would not have the current education it has?

The Greeks might have something to say about that and the Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Thais, etc etc seems to have gotten on and be getting (at different stages of social and political development) absolutely fine, in particular Sweden where the population is up to 80% non religious without the wonders of christian influence.

NaFirinne wrote: »

Educating children about God is not abuse.

Well articulated, you've convinced me why kids aren't permitted to watch Bay Watch until they are at least 13 but it's hunky dory to terrify them with tales of wrath and going to hell unless they obey and love god etc etc. :rolleyes:

If religious indoctrination were not allowed until the child had reached the age of reason, lets say entering secondary school, the world would be a much more enlightened place.

NaFirinne wrote: »

The primary educator for any Child must be the parent as such educating them physically, mentally and spiritually is are the basics.

Fixed that for ya there and whilst I don't think anyone would disagree that the primary educator should be the parents including "spirituality" in the mix is absolutely not one of the essential basics. Reading, writing, hygiene, social behaviour, good manners etc would be on my list of basics and included in reading would be references and material explaining the main religions of the world so the child can educate themselves on the history of religion, it's role in history etc but (I'm sure it won't surprise you to find out) I wouldn't be forcing my personal preference (if I had one) on them.

NaFirinne wrote: »

The world has always tried to destroy Christianity - through banning christian education - banning the right to worship - to torturing and killing Christians.

Exactly when has "The World" tried to destroy christianity? I'm sure certain countries have adopted policies which did not permit the teaching of non approved religions (I'm thinking China many years ago and maybe some Islamic Republics today such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran??) but on the flip side "christian" countries such as Germany and Italy did a pretty good job of destroying the world in the WW1 and WW2 including the extermination of 6 million jews. When and where has such brutality "always" been visited upon christians?

NaFirinne wrote: »

Though many times society have come to the brink of extinction it always falls to small group following God to bring it back.

I've no idea what you're on about, please elaborate and refrence how this alleged small group following god brought society back to Thailand, China, Russia, Japan etc.

NaFirinne wrote: »

1.7 million unborn babies fetuses slaughtered aborted so far this year - People will have a lot to answer for following after such an evil.

You know constantly using incorrect terminology won't make it correct??? Fetuses are fetuses not babies, when they are born they are babies, then they grow a bit more and become children etc etc, you get the picture I'm sure.

Also, slaughtering is a term used to describe the killing of animals or people in a cruel manner. Using it to describe the process to abort a fetus is just inflammatory nonsense.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Three things:-

1. I was responding to an issue Nick Park raised.

2. Many posters but particularly J C and owenybaloney seem to be on a mission to promote religious dogma here and warning us all we'll burn in hell if we don't repent blah blah blah which seems further removed from the issue of abortion than my response to Nick Park's assertion that in addition to voting against permitting abortion on the grounds that it was child abuse he would also vote for anything else which reduced child abuse in society so I therefore asked him a logical follow up question relating to whether he agrees that the indoctrination of children is, almost uniquely in society, one of the last bastions of permitted child abuse which should be legislated against.

3. My reference was not exclusively to the catholic indoctrination of children. To make such a singular point would be silly but for clarity let me assert that the banning of childhood indoctrination into religion should not be limited to catholics but should apply to all religions. Why can't religions wait until kids are old enough to make up their own minds?

Children are indoctrinated into all sorts. It's called education. They are told c a t spells cat - long before they can understand why it ought be spelt so. The question is whether the indoctrinator is issuing accurate information or not. Who is to decide that?

It would seem that in the case of religion, you've decided inaccurate - thus indoctrination and not education. But who are you to decide?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Has there ever been any evidence from beyond the grave of anything other than you're dead?

Bill Burr eloquently puts it as follows:-

<snip>

Edit: Apologies to anyone who was offended by the swear word in the original version of this which has now been removed.

You made a claim that seemed unbackupable. You don't back it up by asking another to demonstrate a contrary view. Your claim. You support it. Is the way things go...

Nick Park

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Serious question which may be viewed by the more dogmatic posters as inflammatory but I can only promise it's not:-

Would you support a call for legislation which outlawed the indoctrination of children into religion before they are mature enough to make their own decision on what they want to believe in?

We protect children from all kinds of influences which they are not mature enough to decide for themselves but we somehow feel it's ok for them to be exposed to a constant barrage via christian schools and mass on Sunday etc which tells them that they are born sinners and unless they repent they will feel the wrath of god and spent eternity in hell blah blah blah.

If children were exposed to such messages in an any other context society would be up in arms about child abuse but when the label "religion" is applied to it apparently it's fine.

What do you think?

It's reasonable and natural for parents to share their religious belief (or lack of such belief) with their children. Anyone who labels that as 'child abuse' is, in my opinion, an intolerant bigot and a drama queen to boot.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You made a claim that seemed unbackupable. You don't back it up by asking another to demonstrate a contrary view. Your claim. You support it. Is the way things go...

You talking to me?

If so the only claim I made is that I'm not aware of any evidence that there is anything after death other than being dead.

I hardly need to "support" that as there is no evidence to the contrary is there?

Nick Park

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nick Park's assertion that in addition to voting against permitting abortion on the grounds that it was child abuse he would also vote for anything else which reduced child abuse in society

Actually I didn't assert that abortion is child abuse. I said that I would vote against unlimited abortion as I would vote against slavery, people trafficking, or a number of other things including child abuse. My point was making a distinction between enforcing religious morality (which I don't support) and protecting people's life and liberty.