Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…1920222425…174

Comments

  • #632
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    I'm sorry but it's true. I have no problems with anybody being spiritual or what their religious beliefs are but anybody who supports this organisation is a traitor to this country and to the human species.

    I am born and raised catholic. I still have spiritual beliefs and I believe in a god. What I don't do is support an abomination of an organisation like the RCC. Quite frankly at this stage anybody that does should be classed as a terrorist.

    Maybe my views are extreme but they are a hell of a lot more valid than anyone who buries their head in the sand and supports the the RCC.


  • #633
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    BloodBath wrote: »
    I'm sorry but it's true. I have no problems with anybody being spiritual or what their religious beliefs are but anybody who supports this organisation is a traitor to this country and to the human species.

    I am born and raised catholic. I still have spiritual beliefs and I believe in a god. What I don't do is support an abomination of an organisation like the RCC. Quite frankly at this stage anybody that does should be classed as a terrorist.

    Maybe my views are extreme but they are a hell of a lot more valid than anyone who buries their head in the sand and supports the the RCC.

    MOD NOTE

    The topic is "can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?".

    Please keep to the topic.

    Any further off-topic posts will be deleted.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #634
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    Fair enough. I understand attacking this is not going to gain me any fans on this forum. Quite frankly I don't give a damn though.

    More people need to start speaking up against this evil.

    As for the abortion issue. I'm still on the fence over it. Is abortion where the line in the sand is for the RCC and their followers these days? It's no longer the sperm and egg they protect? So contraception is ok now, just no abortions?

    I can understand women wanting the freedom to control their lives and bodies. We live in a democracy and if this is something they want then they should be allowed to vote on the issue and they will. We don't get to judge their decisions.

    The RCC and it's followers have denied the democratic and human rights of people in this country for long enough. If you feel it's morally or religiously wrong then fine. That's your right. Let the people who have to make that horrible choice deal with the consequences themselves.

    Also do you not feel hypocritical attacking this issue when the RCC were practically performing abortions themselves well after 9 months. How many mothers were stripped of their babies to be sold or let die or killed while the women were completely outcast from society and used as slave labour? How many in Tuam alone which is only 1 of many mass burial sites in Ireland from recent history.

    Or do you not talk about those issues?


  • #635
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    gallifreya wrote: »
    Why is the compassion only going one way -where is the compassion for women?

    It's going to be a long Referendum campaign if we're going to keep hearing these kind of illogical accusations and nonsensical arguments.

    It's perfectly reasonable to have compassion for the unborn, to believe that protecting the right to life of the unborn is important, and to have compassion for women also.
    There seems to be a blindness to any suffering or injury that could befall women due to pregnancy as long as the foetus is protected.

    I've yet to meet anyone who is blind to suffering or injury that could befall women. The view of the pro-life people I've met (the majority of whom are women themselves) is that caring for pregnant women in the vast majority of cases does not require killing an unborn child.
    Should a 12 week limit pass, the unborn will still be protected - just at a later stage of development.

    The 'logic' here can easily be demonstrated as defective by applying it to other scenarios.

    "If we exempt children under 3-years-old from child protection legislation then children will still be protected - just at a later stage of development."

    "If we remove equality legislation from women under the age of 18 then women will still be protected - just at a later stage of development."

    The whole point of legislation to protect people's rights is that it protects all people - not just some. And there's nothing to be gained by dishonestly pretending that a concern for the rights of one group of people (the unborn) thereby shows a lack of concern for the rights of another group of people (women).


  • #636
    flc37ie6ojwkh8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭flc37ie6ojwkh8


    I know a person who's a very catholic christian and had already 3 abortions in the UK. I don't think abortion and Christianity should collide. Round earth and Christianity collided some centuries ago but they eventually evolved. Same with abortion.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    BloodBath wrote: »
    Fair enough. I understand attacking this is not going to gain me any fans on this forum. Quite frankly I don't give a damn though.

    More people need to start speaking up against this evil.

    As for the abortion issue. I'm still on the fence over it. Is abortion where the line in the sand is for the RCC and their followers these days? It's no longer the sperm and egg they protect? So contraception is ok now, just no abortions?

    I can understand women wanting the freedom to control their lives and bodies. We live in a democracy and if this is something they want then they should be allowed to vote on the issue and they will. We don't get to judge their decisions.

    The RCC and it's followers have denied the democratic and human rights of people in this country for long enough. If you feel it's morally or religiously wrong then fine. That's your right. Let the people who have to make that horrible choice deal with the consequences themselves.

    Also do you not feel hypocritical attacking this issue when the RCC were practically performing abortions themselves well after 9 months. How many mothers were stripped of their babies to be sold or let die or killed while the women were completely outcast from society and used as slave labour? How many in Tuam alone which is only 1 of many mass burial sites in Ireland from recent history.

    Or do you not talk about those issues?

    Much as some would like to make the Referendum all about the RCC, it isn't. A number of the Christian posters in this thread (including JC and myself) are not members of the RCC.

    So why should I and others like me feel hypocritical because we see unborn children as deserving of human rights?


  • #638
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    I thought this thread was an actual intelligent question but it's Not, simply a statement.

    Thread title should be changed.


  • #639
    BloodBath
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,299 ✭✭✭✭BloodBath


    Nick Park wrote: »
    Much as some would like to make the Referendum all about the RCC, it isn't. A number of the Christian posters in this thread (including JC and myself) are not members of the RCC.

    So why should I and others like me feel hypocritical because we see unborn children as deserving of human rights?

    Good to hear. My apologies then for assuming you were but you can see where I am coming from I hope. You obviously have issues with them yourselves if you decided to join another denomination.

    I do understand and I'm not exactly pro abortion but at the same time I'm not a woman and it's probably something I will never have to worry about. They should have the right to vote on the issue even if some us have moral issues with it.

    I think there are definite grounds for it in many cases. Fetal abnormalities, pregnancies resulting from rape, pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother etc. The idea I'm not fond of is careless pregnancies from casual sex being casually aborted on a regular basis but we already have things like the morning after pill that do that.


  • #640
    Nick Park
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,573 ✭✭✭Nick Park


    Arian Strong Lyrics wrote: »
    Round earth and Christianity collided some centuries ago but they eventually evolved.

    Really? Could you tell us when this collision (of which church historians appear to be ignorant) happened?

    From the earliest days of Christianity the majority view has always been that the earth was a sphere.


  • #641
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    One aspect not mentioned, is the rights of the baby/foetus father. Should it not be the case if a woman wants an abortion that where practical the fathers permission should be sought. In fairness the baby needs sperm and egg....the mother doesn't own the baby/foetus.
    I agree there are exceptions such as the mothers health, but in other cases if the father wants the child then why wouldn't the mother go full term and hand the baby over.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    BloodBath wrote: »
    I'm sorry but it's true. I have no problems with anybody being spiritual or what their religious beliefs are but anybody who supports this organisation is a traitor to this country and to the human species.

    I am born and raised catholic. I still have spiritual beliefs and I believe in a god. What I don't do is support an abomination of an organisation like the RCC. Quite frankly at this stage anybody that does should be classed as a terrorist.

    Maybe my views are extreme but they are a hell of a lot more valid than anyone who buries their head in the sand and supports the the RCC.

    Is this poster allowed to continually attack and abuse Catholics with absolutely no punishment?


  • #643
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Is this poster allowed to continually attack and abuse Catholics with absolutely no punishment?
    MOD NOTE

    If you have a problem with a post(s) please use the report button or PM a mod.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #644
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Gerry T wrote: »
    One aspect not mentioned, is the rights of the baby/foetus father. Should it not be the case if a woman wants an abortion that where practical the fathers permission should be sought. In fairness the baby needs sperm and egg....the mother doesn't own the baby/foetus.
    I agree there are exceptions such as the mothers health, but in other cases if the father wants the child then why wouldn't the mother go full term and hand the baby over.

    The reason no one has mentioned it is because a person's desire to be a parent doesn't override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. A person can't be forced to give blood or donate an organ to save their spouses life, so why in the world would they be made continue a pregnancy they don't want so their spouse could be a parent?

    It's one thing when people talk about the unborn's rights. I don't always agree with them, but I can understand their reasoning. I can see no reasoning behind the idea that a woman should continue a pregnancy because of the wants or right of someone external to that pregnancy, even if that person played a part in the creation of that pregnancy.


  • #645
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    The reason no one has mentioned it is because a person's desire to be a parent doesn't override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. A person can't be forced to give blood or donate an organ to save their spouses life, so why in the world would they be made continue a pregnancy they don't want so their spouse could be a parent?

    It's one thing when people talk about the unborn's rights. I don't always agree with them, but I can understand their reasoning. I can see no reasoning behind the idea that a woman should continue a pregnancy because of the wants or right of someone external to that pregnancy, even if that person played a part in the creation of that pregnancy.

    So should the father be obliged to be legally responsible in relation to the child once it's born?


  • #646
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    EOTR, don't even go there.
    You've made a fool of yourself on every single other abortion thread. Numerous arguments have been put forward to you, all of which were intelligent and valid.
    You reply by shouting the same inane arguments over again, sprinkled with contradictions and NIMBYisms. I just can't take you seriously. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
    MOD NOTE

    Please refrain from personal remarks. "Attack the post, not the poster".

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #647
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,854 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Is this poster allowed to continually attack and abuse Catholics with absolutely no punishment?

    He's not attacking Catholics he is attacking the organisation that is the RCC


  • #648
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    He's not attacking Catholics he is attacking the organisation that is the RCC

    No, he's attacking individual Catholics.


  • #649
    gallifreya
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 54 ✭✭gallifreya


    Nick Park wrote: »

    The 'logic' here can easily be demonstrated as defective by applying it to other scenarios.

    "If we exempt children under 3-years-old from child protection legislation then children will still be protected - just at a later stage of development."

    "If we remove equality legislation from women under the age of 18 then women will still be protected - just at a later stage of development."

    The whole point of legislation to protect people's rights is that it protects all people - not just some. And there's nothing to be gained by dishonestly pretending that a concern for the rights of one group of people (the unborn) thereby shows a lack of concern for the rights of another group of people (women).

    We are clearly at a different starting point regarding rights for the unborn. The foetus at 12 weeks not a person. Rights awarded to the unborn come at the expense of the rights of pregnant woman. A foetus is a developing potential person completely different from a born child or 18 year old person. I think we are not in dispute that a foetus should have rights at all but rather when those rights should be attained.

    That's your own false equivilency not mine.

    There is no dishonesty or pretence in that these supposed equal rights are currently harming women. I asked a question about compassion out of genuine curiosity. The 'love both' concept is just peddling the status quo imo. However, awarding all the concern and compassion for the unborn does indeed indicate a lack of concern and compassion for the pregnant women, 'loving both' notwithstanding. Maybe a balance in compassion could be achieved to repeal this draconian amendment that actually would achieve a balance of rights.


  • #650
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    NuMarvel wrote:
    The reason no one has mentioned it is because a person's desire to be a parent doesn't override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. A person can't be forced to give blood or donate an organ to save their spouses life, so why in the world would they be made continue a pregnancy they don't want so their spouse could be a parent?

    But it's not about bodily autonomy, the baby is a third person in the equation. In my opinion [prob not shared by many :-)] when a woman gets pregnant she shouldn't have sole say over child during pregnancy....and I keep saying, except where the woman's health is at real risk. To say just because the mother doesn't want the child [excluding health issues] that she can singularly terminate is to ignore the wishes of the soon to be father. Just like if a woman gets pregnant and singularly decides to keep the baby, the father is held responsibly to contribute towards the child's upbringing.
    If men carried babies, you'd see women argue this case !!


  • #651
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Gerry T wrote: »
    But it's not about bodily autonomy, the baby is a third person in the equation. In my opinion [prob not shared by many :-)] when a woman gets pregnant she shouldn't have sole say over child during pregnancy....and I keep saying, except where the woman's health is at real risk. To say just because the mother doesn't want the child [excluding health issues] that she can singularly terminate is to ignore the wishes of the soon to be father. Just like if a woman gets pregnant and singularly decides to keep the baby, the father is held responsibly to contribute towards the child's upbringing.
    If men carried babies, you'd see women argue this case !!

    Its everything to do with bodily autonomy.
    A woman has no power to consent or withdraw consent at any time for any procedure for the duration of her pregnancy. So if a doctor decides to do something, while she is being examined, or is in labour, her consent is neither sought nor regarded.

    As soon as the baby has the ability to survive by itself outside the womb, without the mother as host, without needing the mother to grow and thrive, I agree that its a 3rd person.
    While it relies on her body for absolutely everything, it is part of her, and it should be up to her what happens to it.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,494 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Its everything to do with bodily autonomy.
    A woman has no power to consent or withdraw consent at any time for any procedure for the duration of her pregnancy. So if a doctor decides to do something, while she is being examined, or is in labour, her consent is neither sought nor regarded.

    As soon as the baby has the ability to survive by itself outside the womb, without the mother as host, without needing the mother to grow and thrive, I agree that its a 3rd person.
    While it relies on her body for absolutely everything, it is part of her, and it should be up to her what happens to it.

    except it can't be up to her, because technically it's not part of her, but is a life form in it's own right. it relies on her for a period of time yes, but it is still ultimately a separate life.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #653
    pilly
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,005 ✭✭✭pilly


    I think it's a scream that a poster has come over here after been thrown out of another thread for making ludicrous statements with no proof, given me the best laugh of the day. :D:D:D:D:D:D


  • #654
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    except it can't be up to her, because technically it's not part of her, but is a life form in it's own right. it relies on her for a period of time yes, but it is still ultimately a separate life.

    If it depends on her for survival, it should be up to her.
    If you must that insist they are separate, then surely abortion wouldn't even be an issue because we could just remove embryos/fetuses from unwilling mothers and have them surrendered to state care.
    But that wouldn't be possible because the embryo/fetus cannot survive without the mother as host.


  • #655
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Gerry T wrote: »
    But it's not about bodily autonomy, the baby is a third person in the equation. In my opinion [prob not shared by many :-)] when a woman gets pregnant she shouldn't have sole say over child during pregnancy....and I keep saying, except where the woman's health is at real risk. To say just because the mother doesn't want the child [excluding health issues] that she can singularly terminate is to ignore the wishes of the soon to be father.

    What happens to a person's body is very much about bodily autonomy, so I'm perfectly fine with ignoring the father's wishes in these cases.

    The opposite would apply also; if she wanted to continue the pregnancy, and he wanted her to have an abortion, she would have the final say.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Just like if a woman gets pregnant and singularly decides to keep the baby, the father is held responsibly to contribute towards the child's upbringing.

    Its nothing like that, because bodily autonomy is a more fundamental issue than financial responsibilities. But if you want to change the rules around financial maintenance, there's nothing stopping you from campaigning for it.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    If men carried babies, you'd see women argue this case !!

    Other people say if men could become pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner. Let's stick to what actually happens.


  • #656
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    God does not permit abortion under any circumstances.


  • #657
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE

    Off-topic posts delete as per previous warning.

    Please keep to the topic to avoid further moderation.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #658
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »
    God does not permit abortion under any circumstances.

    God can vote to keep the 8th so.....


  • #659
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭ouxbbkqtswdfaw


    Those that provide for abortion will pay dearly


  • #660
    NaFirinne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 336 ✭✭NaFirinne


    Given the extent of the problem of unwanted babies in the world today that abortion tries to resolve through convenience.

    I would be more for fixing our constitution so there is no sex before marriage or if there is then people need to marry whom they have sex with.

    If people stuck to that rule we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,024 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    NaFirinne wrote: »
    Given the extent of the problem of unwanted babies in the world today that abortion tries to resolve through convenience.

    I would be more for fixing our constitution so there is no sex before marriage or if there is then people need to marry whom they have sex with.

    If people stuck to that rule we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.

    just to be clear, you want to outlaw sex outside of marriage to avoid the requirement for abortion?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement