Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So he's denigrating now? I suppose one can't really call a non-christian a heretic in this day and age.

He may wish to have no interest in religion, but religion very much has an interest in him and the laws he - and the rest of us - must live under.

Are no dissenting opinions to be tolerated here? And some people wonder why Christianity in the developed world is going down the tubes.

If you want a safe-space echo chamber like the old Islam forum was, ask the mods, but I doubt they'll entertain that sort of thing again.

Sigh, put your faux outrage back in your pocket.

Where did I suggest no dissenting opinions be allowed here?

I simply pointed out that a poster who claims he/she would not invest time in denigrating something they claim not to be interested in, is obviously contradicting themselves by investing a considerable amount of time in asking a question in the Christianity forum, getting bent out of shape when they get an answer that disagrees with them, and argues that a core Christian practice (and the exercising of a basic human right) constitutes child abuse.

Peregrinus wrote: »

He does, but he does not have to answer this question by imparting a belief. He could simply answer "I have no idea", or words to that effect; this would not be indoctrination.

Why oh why would I mislead a child and tell him "I've no idea" when the evidence of death i.e. rigor mortis, no brain activity etc is that you are dead, end of story.

I understand the need for some people to hold onto the idea that there's an afterlife, I genuinely do. It must be like a comfort blanket to those who convince themselves an afterlife exists but as I've seen no evidence for it whatsoever I'm not going to lie to a child and tell him something exists when there isn't the slightest evidence that it does.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

@Je_suis_Jean

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

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.

Given that you're posting in the Christianity forum, it's not acceptable to suggest that Christian parents are engaging in child abuse because they choose to raise their children in the Christian faith.

Please refrain from such antagonistic comments in any future postings.

Thanks for your attention.

smacl wrote: »

Do they, or did they? I'm not aware of anyone in this day and age advocating enslavement of 'black people' and fail to see how this bears any relationship whatsoever to the abortion debate. Seems like a rather flimsy red herring.

It's not a red herring at all.

By the way, there still are a few white nationalists who advocate enslavement of blacks. But the basis of a proposition (eg: is it scientific fact or philosophical belief) is not determined by how many or how few people hold to it.

I was responding to your suggestion that belief in the personhood of an unborn child is a philosophical belief, and the implication that on those grounds it is unreasonable to seek protection for unborn children under law.

My point was that many laws (which you and I would both support as good and necessary) are similarly based on philosophical belief.

Edit:
The question of whether an unborn child is a human being, I suspect, lies at the heart of the abortion debate. It is a question that people are divided on irrespective of religion. I have spent time with atheist parents who, after suffering the heartbreak of a miscarriage or stillbirth, are firmly convinced that they are mourning the death of a child and a human being.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You really don't get it do you? I don't "believe" there is nothing after you die. There is no evidence to support the belief that there is something after you die.

Oh but there is. It's just that you have a philosophy about what constitutes acceptable evidence (empiricism, rationalism, etc). There is no proving this philosophy true, rather, you believe your philosophy to be sound.

You might say you have no evidence to cause you to hold other than to this philosophy. In which case, I can say the same about my philosophy.

Wouldn't it be the case then that neither of us believe?

AFAIK elephants are unable to pole dance. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary. Does that mean I somehow have a "belief" that they can't pole dance?

To someone who's seen elephants pole dance, yes.

The ploy of positing the ludicrous forgets that, what's considered fact / belief depends on whether or not the parties involved have a common view.

Both you and I would suppose elephants can't pole dance because our philosophies are in agreement at that point. We can both shift our view on elephants beyond the belief and into fact.

But when our philosophies don't agree then we proceed such as up top - applying rigor to proceedings and finding that you don't do other than I do in essence.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Why oh why would I mislead a child and tell him "I've no idea" when the evidence of death i.e. rigor mortis, no brain activity etc is that you are dead, end of story.

But the evidence I have indicates there is life after death. You might reject what I consider evidence to be evidence. But that's a philosophical matter - there is no authority who can declare absolutely what constitutes evidence or not.

Philosophies are personal things: there is no proving a philosophy true as such

Because they are personal and unprovable, they lie in the realm of belief.

I understand the need for some people to hold onto the idea that there's an afterlife, I genuinely do. It must be like a comfort blanket to those who convince themselves an afterlife exists but as I've seen no evidence for it whatsoever I'm not going to lie to a child and tell him something exists when there isn't the slightest evidence that it does.

Which puts you in the same boat as a Christian who has evidence that God exists.

Nick Park wrote: »

Sigh, you keep ignoring what I post and responding instead to something I never said.

I didn't say you are denigrating a person's right to believe in whatever God they choose. :rolleyes:

I said that you were denigrating Christian belief and practice, namely the core Christian belief that parents have a responsibility to raise their children in the faith. Btw, exercising such parental choice in the field of religion is affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. You denigrated this basic human right as 'child abuse'.

You claimed that you wouldn't invest time in denigrating Christian belief, I was simply pointing out the untruthfulness of that statement since this is exactly what you are doing in this thread (apart from derailing it).

As for whether you are a troll - I never said you were a troll. Neither would I try to argue that you're not a troll. That would be backseat moderating. It would be up to the moderators, if they think you are a troll, to send a message to you under your bridge.

I'm challenging not denigrating, there's a difference which you obviously don't understand or choose not to.

The ECHR does indeed currently affirm the right of parents/guardians to choose the religion of their children. More importantly however under international law, Article 14 (2) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires States Parties to respect the rights and duties of parents to provide direction to their child in the exercise of his/her right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child. Thus, as opposed to Article 14 (3) of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the CRC focuses on the exercise of the freedom of the child him/herself. Under the CRC, parents have the right to provide guidance and direction not in accordance with their own convictions, but in accordance with the convictions held by the children.

Things are not quite as black and white as you'd like them to be.

Now, back on topic please.

Anyone still think christians can't vote for abortion and later be forgiven provided they genuinely repent?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Oh but there is. It's just that you have a philosophy about what constitutes acceptable evidence (empiricism, rationalism, etc). There is no proving this philosophy true, rather, you believe your philosophy to be sound.

You might say you have no evidence to cause you to hold other than to this philosophy. In which case, I can say the same about my philosophy.

Wouldn't it be the case then that neither of us believe?

To someone who's seen elephants pole dance, yes.

The ploy of positing the ludicrous forgets that, what's considered fact / belief depends on whether or not the parties involved have a common view.

Both you and I would suppose elephants can't pole dance because our philosophies are in agreement at that point. We can both shift our view on elephants beyond the belief and into fact.

But when our philosophies don't agree then we proceed such as up top - applying rigor to proceedings and finding that you don't do other than I do in essence.

Can we please bookmark this post as a snapshot of reality Vs a haze of halucination?

You can try and philosophise all you like. Elephants can't pole dance. (Please argue they can please please please!!)

Binary decisions are quite threatening to people who don't like facing reality. That's cool for them but please don't expect the rest of the rational world to buy into it.

antiskeptic wrote: »

But the evidence I have indicates there is life after death. You might reject what I consider evidence to be evidence. But that's a philosophical matter - there is no authority who can declare absolutely what constitutes evidence or not.

Philosophies are personal things: there is no proving a philosophy true as such

Because they are personal and unprovable, they lie in the realm of belief.

Which puts you in the same boat as a Christian who has evidence that God exists.

Actually said in the same post. I absolutely and truly love it.

If Boards paid an entrance fee for this sort of entertainment I'd gladly pay it, this is beyond priceless and I actually think beats owneybaloneys desire to start a discussion about sodomy on his own christian thread yesterday.

The thread that just keeps on giving.

More please.

Deditor

we don't have to give in to this abortion thing

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Can we please bookmark this post as a snapshot of reality Vs a haze of halucination?

You can try and philosophise all you like. Elephants can't pole dance. (Please argue they can please please please!!)

Binary decisions are quite threatening to people who don't like facing reality. That's cool for them but please don't expect the rest of the rational world to buy into it.

You mean you didn't realize your views had a philosophical underpinning? You thought they were simply FACT?

Is that because someone told you so?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I'm challenging not denigrating, there's a difference which you obviously don't understand or choose not to.

The word 'denigrate' means to disparage or belittle. It comes from the Latin denigrare (to blacken).

You are now trying to argue that labelling a practice as 'child abuse' is simply 'challenging' rather than trying to portray the practice in a poor light.

Do you not see that this nonsensical abuse of language diminishes your credibility? The longer you persist in it, the less credibility attaches to anything else you post.

"Hey, you're a child abuser!"
"How dare you denigrate me by calling me that."
"Ah come on, I'm only challenging you. You obviously don't understand, or choose not to recognise the difference."

Good luck with trying that argument in the real world.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Actually said in the same post. I absolutely and truly love it.

If Boards paid an entrance fee for this sort of entertainment I'd gladly pay it, this is beyond priceless and I actually think beats owneybaloneys desire to start a discussion about sodomy on his own christian thread yesterday.

The thread that just keeps on giving.

More please.

Leaving so soon?

NaFirinne

Over 200,000 Babies aborted since the start of this thread.

How can you justify that number?

NaFirinne wrote: »

Over 200,000 foetuses aborted since the start of this thread.

How can you justify that number?

By changing a single word.

antiskeptic wrote: »

You mean you didn't realize your views had a philosophical underpinning? You thought they were simply FACT?

Is that because someone told you so?

No it's because I tried the philosophical thing once and it didn't work, nearly killed myself.

Just for laughs I decided not to believe the evidence that gravity existed and chose instead to believe it didn't.

A few weeks on crutches straightened out my thinking from then on

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

The question of whether an unborn child is a human being, I suspect, lies at the heart of the abortion debate. It is a question that people are divided on irrespective of religion. I have spent time with atheist parents who, after suffering the heartbreak of a miscarriage or stillbirth, are firmly convinced that they are mourning the death of a child and a human being.

I agree. While there are some pro-life atheists there are similarly many Christians who are pro-choice and others still who have had abortions in the UK. While the established Christian church pushes a strongly pro-life stance it seems dubious that the majority of Christians in this country share that stance but I guess time will tell on that one.

As for your slavery analogy, to my mind slavery is something barbaric from the past that most civilised societies have long since rejected. As our civilisation progresses I would sincerely hope that we would stop trying to force women to have babies that they don't want, regardless of anyone's strongly held religious beliefs.

Timberrrrrrrr

NaFirinne wrote: »

Over 200,000 Babies aborted since the start of this thread.

How can you justify that number?

Thousands murdered every day, thousands raped every day, thousands assaulted every day.

Do you wring your hands over these numbers too or do you gloss over them because they don't affect you in any way as you don't know the victims?

The fact is that you are trying to equate numbers worldwide with a small country of 4+ milion.

Irish women have and will continue to have abortions regardless of the outcome of the referendum, I will vote yes as I believe that they shouldn't have to go through the trauma of having to travel to another country for this procedure.

Nick Park wrote: »

The word 'denigrate' means to disparage or belittle. It comes from the Latin denigrare (to blacken).

You are now trying to argue that labelling a practice as 'child abuse' is simply 'challenging' rather than trying to portray the practice in a poor light.

Do you not see that this nonsensical abuse of language diminishes your credibility? The longer you persist in it, the less credibility attaches to anything else you post.

"Hey, you're a child abuser!"
"How dare you denigrate me by calling me that."
"Ah come on, I'm only challenging you. You obviously don't understand, or choose not to recognise the difference."

Good luck with trying that argument in the real world.

I'd say the United Nations is pretty much the real world and they state in the CRC that parents have the right to provide guidance and direction not in accordance with their own convictions, but in accordance with the convictions held by the children.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to challenge anything which goes beyond that, and in my view the current practice of weekend mass/mosque etc, + daily reinforcement at religious school + parental guidance at home goes way beyond what the CRC permits and is therefore abusive to the child hence child abuse.

I know that is not a commonly held belief here (and I've just noticed the mod asked me to refrain from it's use so I won't in future) but things change as we have found out in recent referendums and will (hopefully) find out again in this upcoming one on the 8th amendment. <- Desperately trying to get back on topic!!

NaFirinne

antiskeptic wrote: »

By changing a single word.

So the same way people have justifying killing thousands of people in the past, by dehumanising them.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I'd say the United Nations is pretty much the real world and they state in the CRC that parents have the right to provide guidance and direction not in accordance with their own convictions, but in accordance with the convictions held by the children.

None of which has even the slightest bearing on your nonsensical argument that labelling parents taking their children to mass as 'child abuse' is not denigration.

Nor does the Convention on the Rights of the Child remove the human right of parents to raise and educate their children in the parents' religion. Any reasonable person can see how both human rights can easily be maintained.

But I agree with you that the United Nations is the real world. So if you can produce a quote from the United Nations saying that accusations of 'child abuse' constitute a mere challenge, rather than denigration, then I will gladly concede the point.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Please cease with the discussion on religious instruction being child abuse.

The charter states Christians don't have to defend their faith, which is what is happened with Christians being required to show how religious instruction for children isn't child abuse.

Thanks for your attention.

NuMarvel

NaFirinne wrote: »

So the same way people have justifying killing thousands of people in the past, by dehumanising them.

So what do you propose is done to change it? Because banning abortions isn't working. And no one (in Ireland anyway) seems keen prosecuting or being able to stop women having abortions.

So what's your solution?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thousands murdered every day, thousands raped every day, thousands assaulted every day.

Do you wring your hands over these numbers too or do you gloss over them because they don't affect you in any way as you don't know the victims?

It has always puzzled me that anyone would use this ridiculous mode of argumentation.

We are discussing what another poster sees as a massive social ill (abortion). So your response is to start imagining how they do or do not feel about other social ills?

So are we not allowed to discuss abortion unless we simultaneously add a disclaimer to every post emphasising that we are also opposed to murder, rape and assault?

This thread is concerned with proposals to legalise abortion for any reason. I'm quite sure that every poster on either side of the debate would be opposed to proposed legislation to legalise murder, rape or assault.

So, on that understanding, could we discuss the topic on hand rather than indulging in a silly argument that does not address the other side's points or diminish their credibility at all?

NaFirinne

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Thousands murdered every day, thousands raped every day, thousands assaulted every day.

Do you wring your hands over these numbers too or do you gloss over them because they don't affect you in any way as you don't know the victims?

Really? - Can you tell me the number of people (Excluding unborn babies) that are murdered so far this year? How many people have been raped this year? How many even assaulted?

Please give me the figures - then compare those figures to the amount of abortions.

So after 565 posts, if we leave aside the off-topic derailments, we have a clear pattern here.

JC asked in the OP if Christians can vote for unlimited abortion. Most of the Christians who have responded to that question have said that no, they don't feel they can vote for unlimited abortion.

Then we have some non-Christian posters who responded to JC's question by saying that Christians can vote for unlimited abortion on the grounds that our beliefs do not entitle us to tell others what to do (apparently missing the irony that, by telling us that, they are using their beliefs as a basis to tell us how we should vote).

Is that about right?

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

While the established Christian church pushes a strongly pro-life stance

We don't have an established church (thankfully) so I think you mean 'the mainstream Christian churches' - of which the RCC was the only one to support the introduction of the 8th amendment. It is a distinctly sectarian law.

SusieBlue

NaFirinne wrote: »

Over 200,000 Babies aborted since the start of this thread.

How can you justify that number?

I would see that more as 200k women were not in a position to bring another child into the world. Maybe due to her age, existing children, finances, health, health of the foetus, FFA, domestic abuse, lack of familial/spousal support, or maybe she just didn’t want a child.

I would justify it by saying that she took responsibility for her situation by dealing with her crisis in a way she saw fit. And that should be respected, regardless of which side of the argument you fall on.

You see 200k ‘babies’, I see 200k women.
I’m more worried about the living, breathing, sentient women who would have to parent these babies than the clump of cells that were aborted.