Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

no, lets call it what it actually is . 200,000 unborn Babies being killed. there is no getting around that fact, no matter how much one tries to dodge reality.
killing the unborn is not taking responsibility for anything, it's killing the unborn. unless it is within an extreme circumstance then there is no justification for killing the unborn and such should not be and will not be respected, as is just and correct.
the reality is those in favour of abortion on demand know they have no argument for their stance, so have to dehumanise the unborn and remind us how they only care about the living and breathing, dispite the fact the unborn is a form of life which has protections within the constitution.

gallifreya wrote: »

Just to be upfront, my own view is that in pregnancy, all rights should rest with the Mother (unless she waives them in favour of the developing foetus) and said rights only have potential to become equal when the foetus attains viability. Currently, the 8th amendment pits asserted rights to life of the unborn (from implantation) directly in conflict with the rights of the pregnant woman. In maternity care, medical decisions and procedures are being made unilaterally in the best interests of the foetus (frequently without consultation or consent) which may be contrary to the wishes or best interests of a pregnant woman who is actually continuing with the pregnancy. At the moment it’s fine to favour a foetus over the physical health of a pregnant women – continuing with the pregnancy or medical intervention may save the foetus but in doing so leave the woman unable to walk for example. That’s without abortion even being a factor.

A Christian may never choose to avail of the proposed abortion legislation whatever the circumstances. However, as it is, the 8th amendment should be repealed to protect all women’s health regardless of whether they wish to continue with their pregnancy or not. This may never affect you but it could indeed harm, maim or kill a wife, lover, sister, daughter or friend that you care about. On the basis that the women affected may opt to terminate a pregnancy of their own free will, that women’s health, quality of life and wellbeing could be severely compromised by continuing with a pregnancy, that the proposed abortion timeframe is limited to 12 weeks, could a Christian vote yes out of compassion for others?

from my limited knowledge of christianity, voting yes to repeal, which in turn would allow for unrestricted and on demand abortion, goes agains the teachings of the religion. compassion for the unborn is just as important as it is for others, therefore unless it is decided that abortion on demand won't be legislated for, then voting no to repeal is the only option to protect the unborn's right to life.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If you are so passionate about the protection of children with Down’s syndrome why don’t you go out and foster a couple of the many, many children stuck in the foster care system with the condition??

as you well know, this is an invalid argument put forward to dodge his question.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I think it’s more than reasonable that the welfare of the mother and the existing children is taken into account, seeing as they’ll be the ones directly affected by the arrival of a child with special/additional needs.
Not everyone can cope with the severe strain of bringing up a child with a disability.
My brother is disabled and I think my mother and father should be given sainthoods for what they’ve gone through. I know one of their biggest worries is what will happen to him when they’re gone. No parent should have those kinds of worries.
I can totally see why someone might feel abortion is a better option in those circumstances.

sure, and the state needs to step up to the plate and help families in such a situation. allowing the killing of the unborn is not a valid option.

smacl wrote: »

Actually Nick, the opening question was 'Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?', which is not the same as saying they're in favour of it. I would assert that many will vote pro-choice, to what ever degree they are allowed to by the question put to them in a ballot. Peregrinus' post on the first page covers this well. The answer to the OP is clearly yes, regardless of how you dress it up, or how other Christians on here such as the poster below would suggest that Christians who take this course aren't 'genuine' Christians.

It remains to be seen, of course, what the referendum question will be.

If it's a bit like the divorce referendum, with the absolute prohibition being replaced by a provision which accommodates abortion only in defined and constitutionally-entrenched circumstances, then obviously a vote for unlimited abortion isn't being offered, and the question raised in the OP won't arise.

If the proposal is simply to delete the prohibition, and leave it up to the Oireachtas to legislate to permit abortion in whatever circumstances it thinks fit from time to time, I don't think that would be a vote for unlimited abortion; it would be a vote to give the Oireachtas power to determine the limits within which abortion would be permitted.

Almost certainly, there'd be an explicit proposal as to how the Oireachtas would legislate, at least initially, and I very much doubt that it would be a complete decriminalisation of abortion in all circumstances.

The most you could say, I think, would be that someone might vote to give the Oireachtas power to permit unlimited abortion. Can a Christian countenance this state of affairs? Well, yes; it's the usual state of affairs in most countries, and there's no worldwide Christian movement to change this. And it's the current state of affairs in Ireland with respect to many other important moral questions; the Oireachtas can already legislate for which killings of people already born will be regarded as murder, for example, and which will not.

In short, I don't think the question raised in the OP has much application in the real world. Depending on the question put to the people in the referendum, the most people will be able to vote for is to permit abortion on terms to be written into the Constitution, or to permit abortion on the terms in which the government has said it intends to legislate, or to permit abortion on the terms in which the voter thinks, or fears, the Oireachtas is likely to legislate. Realistically, I don't think that in any of those cases are we looking at "unlimited abortion".

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'.

A so called Christian family in California was just found to have tied up their 13 children and most likely abused them and starved them so don't worry about voting on abortion.

I'm sure you'll still go to heaven

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is pro-choice thinking on this (aborting at a stage where life is viable outside the womb)? What has occurred such that the foetus inside the womb isn't a person and the same now-child outside the womb is a person?

The Journal did a fact check on this a while back and found that most of the countries they looked at only allow abortion after the point of viability in specified circumstances.

They also found that abortions after this point represent a very small percentage of overall abortions, typically 1 to 2%, even in countries where there's no restrictions on abortion. EG, Canada's rate in 2014 was 2.4% after 21 weeks.

Most abortions after the point of viability are for wanted pregnancies where something has gone wrong. I think our laws should recognise that and provide for that.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You don't speak for me, or my wife. We have two lovely children, but we had (that we know of, possibly more) five pregnancies. The three we lost between the two live births at an early stage were not regarded as human by the 'catholic' hospital we went to. We were not offered a funeral or a death certificate. We were not offered counselling. We were told to shrug our shoulders and try again - and we did - but we were under no illusion whatsoever that this 'catholic' hospital regarded a miscarried pregnancy at 8 weeks as anything other than a non-entity that goes down the drain with as little drama as possible.

The utter hypocrisy stinks, and stinks badly.

Yes we didn't regard them as human beings either, but they were potential human beings. That's not to say that the loss of that potential was not regretted - but potential thing isn't the same as actual thing and the 'catholic hospital' didn't for one second regard the miscarriages as human beings.

The irony is that if any of those three potential human beings had made it, the son I have now wouldn't have been conceived never mind born. I wouldn't swap him for the unknown potential of any of those three embryos we, not by choice, lost.

Several points here.

First off, I'm sorry to hear about the miscarriages. Been there myself and I know how it feels.

Secondly, I didn't claim to speak for you or your wife. I spoke about the majority of cases that I have encountered. I never claimed that all parents who endure a miscarriage saw their child as a human being.

Thirdly, if you didn't see your miscarried unborn child as a human being, then it sounds as if the 'Catholic' hospital (debatable term, but another topic) did not force their religious views on you. Is that a bad thing?

Fourthly, I'm not a Catholic, so the hypocrisy or otherwise of the Catholic Church is pretty irrelevant to my views on the personhood of the unborn or their entitlement to human rights.

Fifthly, I wouldn't swap my 29-year old daughter for the child that was miscarried earlier in our marriage. I wouldn't swap her for my other daughter who died at 4 years of age. I wouldn't swap her for anyone. But, of course, none of that has any bearing on who we should or should not grant human rights to.

J C wrote: »

I didn't realise that this was the case. If I were to foster a child, I think the fact that s/he had Downs Syndrome wouldn't be of any significance ... they are such loving happy children !!!

You are extremely naive.
For a start, our care system is flooded with children who will never know a home. Domestic adoption is non existent in this country, so unfortunately, long term foster care is the best they can hope for. Children with additional needs are even harder to place in long term foster care, because there are very few fosterers willing to take them on.
As for them being "loving and happy"...Well yes. But they also require full time care and attention, and will be dependent on their carer for their whole lives. Only a negligible amount ever manage to lead an independent adult life.
They have a myriad of social, emotional and health issues. Bringing a child with this condition is no walk in the park, no matter how "happy and loving" they may be.

... do you think it is acceptable to kill them all? ... as is currently happening in Iceland ... and rapidly getting there in England (with a 90% 'termination' rate for Downes Syndrome unborn children), the country whose abortion regime is being held up to us as a model to follow.

Of course not. But I don't think anyone should be forced to continue with a pregnancy they don't want. The only person that suffers is the mother. I care more about the mother than the clump of cells.

I agree ... and society needs to do much more to help such families and children ... but killing them?? ... I genuinely think (hope) that we are much more civilised than that.
These children aren't 'life unworthy of life'. They may not be perfect Humans ... but then please show me somebody who is perfect.

In an ideal society, there would be no need for abortion. Because every pregnancy would be planned and wanted, and those that weren't would have a world class safety net to fall back on. This isn't the reality of today.
Of course, we can aspire to live in such a society, but until we do, and changes are made to help these families, we need to give women the option to terminate.

That isn't our decision to make ... no more than born children, who can also cause us any number of problems, can/should be killed either.
The state needs to 'step up to the plate' to help families with vulnerable/ill members.
If we're unlucky, any one of us. may become a burden on our families and society, in our old age ... or even earlier, in an accident, for example.
Saving money by killing off people who cause us various levels of inconvenience is not something that any right-thinking person should support.

It isn't about inconvenience, but you already know that. It isn't your decision, you are correct. It isn't mine either.
Each woman deserves bodily autonomy to decide for herself, for her body, for her future, what happens to it. It is simply none of our business.
As soon as the baby can survive on its own, then abortion should be out of the question.
But while it relies on its mother as host to become sentient, grow and thrive, well its her body. Its inside her. It cannot survive alone. Therefore it should be up to her what happens to her body.

J C wrote: »

Are you not the hypocrite for accusing the RCC of not treating your baby as a Christian child, when you would have accused them of prosletising, or a lot worse, if they had?
If churches treat your right to believe what you wish with respect, do you not welcome that ?
... or is the RCC wrong in your eyes, no matter what they do?

The RCC is a bad joke. An evil murderous abusive organisation set up to take money and power from old superstitious idiots.

I'm not attacking your beliefs but anybody that holds any respect for the RCC is a complete and utter moron who needs to start reading some history books.

I find it amusing that you respect the RCC yet you think abortion is an abomination.

What about the thousands of children in Ireland alone that they abused and let die or murdered or sold over the years?

The people of Ireland, especially the women of Ireland, have had to put up with enough <snip> from the RCC. It's about time the real snakes of Ireland were driven out.