nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C

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'.

It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I'm afraid that the time has come.

What do you mean?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

End of the world-ists have been saying that for a very long short time.

I'm afraid that the time has come.

antiskeptic

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I would advise you to listen to me, as time is short.

End of the world-ists have been saying that for a very long short time.

Gerry T

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

When your pregnant your a guardian for another person, that responsibility carries a duty of care. If you want to "rename" that person as a lump of meat, fine, if that's how you reason putting the mothers wants above another persons needs fine. It doesn't change the face your arguing for a want above a need.

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE] I totally agree if he wanted an aborting and she wanted the baby there's little he should be able to do and he should pay for that child, he made it, he can help pay for it...thats in the best interest of the child.

[/QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE] It was an example, and the childs needs are more important that the mothers wants. I do think if it came to endangering the mothers health, physically or mentally then that is a need and would in my opinion take priority over the babys.

[/QUOTE]Other people say if men could become pregnant, there would be abortion clinics on every corner. Let's stick to what actually happens.[/QUOTE]
Other people are wrong then, as you say, stick with what happens. What would you say are the top 5 reasons women want/have an abortion, that's an honest question, I don't know.

SusieBlue

Gerry T wrote: »

I'm struggling to see why a mother would have any say... can you give an example of what you mean. If a doc decides its in the best interest for the mother to rest or have a blood test, why would the mother have a say ? these recommendations would be in the best interest of both the mother and child.

Sorry, why should the mother, the person who will be rearing this baby, the person whose arrival of this baby will most affect, NOT have a say in the course of her future and in the medical care she receives?
If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, and she is forced to remain so, it is neither in the best interests of the woman or the child.
Why would we force someone who doesn't want to be pregnant, to be pregnant? Whose best interest is that in?

Well we differ here, 1 day before a baby is born its the same as when it's born in my book. Every day you step back from that you still see a baby, just slightly less developed. at what point do you say that baby isn't a person. Even after its born its totally dependent on parents, it can't walk, talk, critically think, fend for itself, so why not terminate a week old baby as one in the womb.

Yes, we definitely differ. I think you'll be hard pressed to find any society on earth that allows or supports the euthanising of infants.
I haven't seen one single pro-choice person, online or in real life, support extremely late term abortions or euthanising a week old baby (??) so it isn't really relevant.
I believe it becomes a baby when it becomes sentient and/or can survive independently outside the womb.
It is widely debated in the scientific community when sentience begins, but most agree it to be around week 17.
That said, the vast majority of abortions occur at the very beginning of pregnancy, so I think the 12 week limit currently being discussed is more than enough.

Gerry T

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.

I'm struggling to see why a mother would have any say... can you give an example of what you mean. If a doc decides its in the best interest for the mother to rest or have a blood test, why would the mother have a say ? these recommendations would be in the best interest of both the mother and child.

[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]
Well we differ here, 1 day before a baby is born its the same as when it's born in my book. Every day you step back from that you still see a baby, just slightly less developed. at what point do you say that baby isn't a person. Even after its born its totally dependent on parents, it can't walk, talk, critically think, fend for itself, so why not terminate a week old baby as one in the womb.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I would advise you to listen to me, as time is short.

pilly

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God does not permit contraception under any circumstances.

Good job he has no say in the laws of the land so.

PopePalpatine

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.

It must be immensely frustrating for you that Da'esh have no Christian equivalent.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

smacl wrote:

Or maybe the papacy could drop the old 'go forth and multiply' line and endorse contraception. How many abortions are a result of inadequate contraception and poor sex education which are in turn a result of overly conservative Catholic education?

God does not permit contraception under any circumstances.

pilly

Surely that post is sarcasm lads?

smacl

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.

Or maybe the papacy could drop the old 'go forth and multiply' line and endorse contraception. How many abortions are a result of inadequate contraception and poor sex education which are in turn a result of overly conservative Catholic education?

eviltwin

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.

Cause no married couples ever have abortions

SusieBlue

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.

So you are in favour of taking away free will from grown adults?

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?

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.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Those that provide for abortion will pay dearly

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God does not permit abortion under any circumstances.

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

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Off-topic posts delete as per previous warning.

Please keep to the topic to avoid further moderation.

Thanks for your attention.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

God does not permit abortion under any circumstances.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 !!

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.

DickSwiveller

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

No, he's attacking individual Catholics.

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

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.