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

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?

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

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?

pilly

Surely that post is sarcasm lads?

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.

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.

pilly

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God does not permit contraception under any circumstances.

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

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I'm afraid that the time has come.

What do you mean?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

What do you mean?

I mean God's time has come to visit retribution.

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I mean God's time has come to visit retribution.

Why? Abortion has been around forever. I don't think little old Ireland matters that much.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

There is still a very short time to repent of all sins. If there is no repentence, the full wrath of the Almighty will be felt.

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

There is still a very short time to repent of all sins. If there is no repentence, the full wrath of the Almighty will be felt.

why now?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

why now?

Why not now?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

Why? Abortion has been around forever. I don't think little old Ireland matters that much.

Even one abortion is a heinous crime against God.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Listen to me.

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Why not now?

Because all this "bad" stuff, abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc has been around a long time. What's changed?

PS how do you know anyway, have you a hotline to heaven

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

eviltwin wrote:

Because all this "bad" stuff, abortion, contraception, homosexuality etc has been around a long time. What's changed?

God has reached the limit of His anger. All those sins you list must be repented of as soon as possible. There is no time to lose.

eviltwin

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God has reached the limit of His anger. All those sins you list must be repented of as soon as possible. There is no time to lose.

And you know this how?

SusieBlue

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God has reached the limit of His anger. All those sins you list must be repented of as soon as possible. There is no time to lose.

I think I’ll take my chances.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

WhiteRoses wrote:

I think Iâ€™ll take my chances.

Of course, your choice.

Timberrrrrrrr

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God has reached the limit of His anger. All those sins you list must be repented of as soon as possible. There is no time to lose.

How do you know? Did i once read somewhere that it is a sin to presume that you speak for "god"?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I have no more to say. Thank you.

Gerry T

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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?

Why does she have to rear it, if she doesn't want to she can put it up for adoption. There's a very long list of couples waiting for a baby to love and care for.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

So you think the baby would prefer to be aborted than born and adopted.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Why would we force someone who doesn't want to be pregnant, to be pregnant? Whose best interest is that in?

The best interest of the child. There's that word again "want" the mother doesn't want to be pregnant. Well tough luck, your want is trumped by the baby's need.
Luckily for women, equality rights movements have secured great protections for working women. They can exit the workplace and have a baby, taking months out, full in the secure knowledge that their job is waiting for them. This should rule out many a reason given for abortion.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

Its relevant if you expand on your point,it becomes a question as to when is a baby not a baby. As far as I'm concerned, its a baby straight after conception, and that will continue to develop for 18yrs (+/- some years) before it becomes an adult.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

What has survival outside the womb got to do with it, silly argument. It can't survive alone outside the womb after a natural birth either. It doesn't change the fact that given a couple of months the baby will develop and remain a baby. At leat be honest and call it what it is, termination of a babys life.

Timberrrrrrrr

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I have no more to say. Thank you.

You've been saying lots if nothing since you joined the thread so nothing new there, you wont answer the questions asked of you because you have no answer to them.

I'll expect more parroting of the same claptrap in a couple of pages after you think everyone has forgotten