Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

end of the road wrote: »

the 8th won't be repealed because of a poster on boards. sorry to disappoint you.

One person? There's an army of dogmatic people who just need to be left rant on so the majority of people can see them and their message for what it is. I didn't claim owenbaloney was alone did I? I actually said:-

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

People like you will actually help win the referendum argument for repealing the 8th just as similar dogma shone a light on why the divorce and marriage equality referendums should be approved.

Please do carry on, you're doing a great job.

The more ownenbaloney types there are the better as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't buy that type of help.

If it is to be repealed it will be because people debated the issue and made and informed choice. Some people have dogmatic reasons to defend the 8th but within that cohort some will be open to being convinced of it's merit and be convinced by discussions they participate in or observe just like this one.

It's an elephant of a task all right but just like eating an elephant you just have to do it one bite (or in this case one person) at a time.

We've already established (well the reigning uber christian within the group owenbaloney has confirmed from his/her deep base of knowledge on the matter) that christians who vote for unlimited abortion but then genuinely repent will be forgiven and invited into the kingdom ever after etc etc so that at least opens the door to some christians who may otherwise have been afraid of gods wrath and unwillingness to forgive them if they vote in favour of abortion but then genuinely repent. For that I am eternally (well until I die anyway) grateful to owenbaloney

end of the road wrote: »

if it is to be repealed it will be via a very very small majority as there is a large number of people, some who are religious and others not, who disagree with abortion on demand.

You don't lease out that crystal ball be any chance? Last year my one thought Clinton would win the US presidency by a fair majority and look what happened!! I could seriously use a good crystal ball for Cheltenham in a few weeks time.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I'm finished talking to you. Goodbye

Ah come on, this is just an internet discussion. I don't agree with but I do value your contribution.

Please don't go.

Please forgive me, I repent.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

What about the sins of sodomy?

Good to have you back.

Sodomy is only a sin for christians who wouldn't do it anyway. Well in fairness some of christianity's most "official" representatives if you know what I mean without wanting to offend you have quite a colourful record of sodomy and not always in a consensual manner but apart from that it's not really a problem for anyone else is it?

I can't believe you want to start a discussion on sodomy on here.

You're like the gift that just keeps on giving, I think I might have a man crush (sans sodomy obviously) on you

end of the road wrote: »

just like the majority of people could see the pro-choice message for what it is? after all, there are a huge amount of dogmatic on the pro-choice side

Can't argue with that.

end of the road wrote: »

more so then the small minority of dogmatic within the already small religious section of the pro-life side.

Really disagree with that but hard to establish data either way so not going to debate you on it.

end of the road wrote: »

by the way, clinton actually did win the people's vote by a decent majority, but lost the electoral college vote. however, that's for another thread.

Very true but (to keep my incorrect Cheltenham analogy going for a minute) the US presidential race is a first past the post of an electoral college system rather than a purely democratic one person one vote type vote so the outcome was unfortunately what it was.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I recall you saying that all these people who didn't 'repent' were 'doing fine'.

Nope, that wasn't me but in the christian spirit of the forum I forgive you for taking my name in vain.

FWIW all I said is that IMHO when you're dead you're dead, end of, nothing else, just dead.

Cabaal wrote: »

wasn't the same claim trotted out about the marriage ref back in 2015?

I think the same claims have been trotted out in every Referendum or election. People on either side often predict results and, inevitable, some of them are wrong.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Wow, you're not showing much love to thy neighbour there are ya?

Calling out bigotry, or wild accusations of 'child abuse', does not indicate a lack of love.

What I have discovered here on boards.ie is a recurring pattern where certain individuals try to argue against commonly held Christian beliefs or practices, and if anyone disagrees with them, start complaining that we're not being loving.

As you conveniently omitted from your little rant I already stated that including material on a range of the major religions in a child's educational curriculum is as valid as learning history or geography so you can withdraw the "intolerant bigot" and "drama queen" (ah, ok leave the drama queen label if you wish, it sounds fun) label at your earliest convenience. Good man.

If you're going to start hurling silly accusations about 'child abuse' around then you're hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of ranting, are you?

And yes, using a term like 'child abuse' to refer to parents raising their children in a religious faith is intolerant bigotry, and remains intolerant bigotry whether or not you think including material on religions in educational curriculum is valid or not.

The point I actually made was indoctrinating children into a specific religion before they are mature enough to reason for themselves is, in my view, child abuse.

I know that was your point. And I've already made my point as to what your view suggests about intolerance and over-dramatic use of language.

You may not choose to distinguish the difference between education and indoctrination as one is often incorrectly used as a label to disguise the other but you're not dealing with defenceless little children here ya know

For what it's worth, I publicly campaign for secular education and against religious indoctrination in school curricula. Your original question about 'child abuse' referred not only to schools, but to children attending mass on a Sunday - a matter of parental choice.

And that is why I pointed out the intolerant bigotry and over-dramatic hysteria of labelling such parental choice as 'child abuse'.

Nick Park wrote: »

For what it's worth, I publicly campaign for secular education and against religious indoctrination in school curricula. Your original question about 'child abuse' referred not only to schools, but to children attending mass on a Sunday - a matter of parental choice.

And that is why I pointed out the intolerant bigotry and over-dramatic hysteria of labelling such parental choice as 'child abuse'.

So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on.

BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.

So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on.

You're all over the place here. Where did I, at any point, express any view about anything JC or owenbaloney have said? Where did I give them 'carte blanche' to do anything?

You're hardly doing yourself any favours here if you genuinely want people not to think you're being a drama queen.

You want to label a huge percentage of Irish parents as 'child abusers' - but then start going on about 'pejorative labels' when someone points out what such wild accusations suggest about you?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.

Nobody claimed that just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse. For goodness sake, if you really want to engage in discussion why don't you start addressing what people actually post?

I pointed out that it is intolerant and hysterical to use the term 'child abuse' with regard to parents choosing to take their children to mass. And, I believe, most reasonable people would agree with me.

NaFirinne wrote: »

The country wants to make it legal to slaughter unborn babies on a massive scale, just like the many countries around the world are doing.

I mean the shear numbers of abortions in the world should be enough to show anyone with a heart that there is something very wrong with it.

The most dangerous place in the world is a mothers womb, that's crazy.

You need to look at the reasons a woman might be compelled to feel she has no other option than to go through such a physically difficult and emotionally draining procedure such as an abortion.
In an ideal world abortion would never be necessary. Because every child would be planned and wanted, by their legal age financially stable fully educated parents, and there would be no health concerns.
Unfortunately this isn’t the reality of the world we live in, so women find themselves in a position where they need one.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You need to look at the reasons a woman might be compelled to feel she has no other option than to go through such a physically difficult and emotionally draining procedure such as an abortion.
In an ideal world abortion would never be necessary. Because every child would be planned and wanted, by their legal age financially stable fully educated parents, and there would be no health concerns.
Unfortunately this isn’t the reality of the world we live in, so women find themselves in a position where they need one.

abortion is for the most part unnecessary. women for the most part don't need it, they want it.
where it is needed, it is mostly availible here. however there are circumstances still not covered where it should be, and we can extend availability to those circumstances via the existing laws which allow abortion in limited circumstances, and we should do that. but unlimited abortion is not needed or necessary, and it should not be provided in ireland.

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

We eat frogs, we generally don't eat babies.....we just want to kill them and dispose of them.

So tadpoles are called tadpoles and not baby frogs because we eat frogs?

Is that seriously what you are saying?

I think my head is going to burst :eek: