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

PopePalpatine

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

All infirmities and illnesses are due to the fallen angel Lucifer and his cohorts, who roam the world, seeking them that they may devour.

So much for omnipotence.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

Wow. Youâ€™re one of those. If thatâ€™s the case would your god not give us a dig out and come back and undo all lucifers work?

I'm trying to explain to you. But you only make me angry with your stupid remarks.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Not everyone believes in your god Owen. I certainly don’t. Do you still think I’m one of her creations and she gave me a soul? You can have your faith and belief but you have no right whatsoever to force it on me or any woman and her Health choices and decisions for her own life.

Do you understand that? You were claiming to speak for god only a few pages back yet someone pointed out your bible strictly forbids that and you ran away.

Might be an idea to keep out of other people’s decisions for their own lives and particularly stay out of women’s wombs. You have no business in there.

when it involves the act of killing, one has a right to say that someone who caries out such an act is wrong. unless it is due to an extreme situation, killing the unborn is not justified.

david75

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God didn't make you gay. The devil did

Wow. You’re one of those.
If that’s the case would your god not give us a dig out and come back and undo all lucifers work?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

So did god make me gay? Why does god make kids sick and give kids cancer?

All infirmities and illnesses are due to the fallen angel Lucifer and his cohorts, who roam the world, seeking them that they may devour.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

So did god make me gay? Why does god make kids sick and give kids cancer?

God didn't make you gay. The devil did

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

Following your logic, god gave me a soul and my body belongs to god.

Yes.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

I donâ€™t want to be with him. Why would I want to be with a god I donâ€™t believe in?

Good luck to you.

david75

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

David, if you refuse to believe in God, you can't be with Him. I'm trying to explain the consequences of refusal to love Him. The consequence is permanent exclusion.

A woman's body is not hers to do as she wishes. It is the property of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t want to be with him. Why would I want to be with a god I don’t believe in?

Following your logic, god gave me a soul and my body belongs to god.

So did god make me gay? Why does god make kids sick and give kids cancer?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I am speaking for God.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

David, if you refuse to believe in God, you can't be with Him. I'm trying to explain the consequences of refusal to love Him. The consequence is permanent exclusion.

A woman's body is not hers to do as she wishes. It is the property of the Holy Spirit.

david75

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Oh God is right.

Not everyone believes in your god Owen. I certainly don’t. Do you still think I’m one of her creations and she gave me a soul? You can have your faith and belief but you have no right whatsoever to force it on me or any woman and her Health choices and decisions for her own life.

Do you understand that? You were claiming to speak for god only a few pages back yet someone pointed out your bible strictly forbids that and you ran away.

Might be an idea to keep out of other people’s decisions for their own lives and particularly stay out of women’s wombs. You have no business in there.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

Oh god

Oh God is right.

david75

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

God implants a soul at conception.

Oh god

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.

God implants a soul at conception.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

antiskeptic wrote:

Human life?

Yes.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.

A miscarriage is a baby.

antiskeptic

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.

Human life?

end of the road

screamer wrote: »

If Christians followed everything in the Bible...our societies wouldn't be any better than those of others which we complain about for being repressive and medieval.
There seems to be a thinking that if we legislate for abortion there'll be abortion en masse. I don't believe that for a second. The decision to end a life would be that of the woman or couple involved and no one elses. Just like if the baby would be theirs to rear and no one elses. So the Christians can salve their conscience. And BTW if a Christian wants to force a woman through a pregnancy from rape or where the baby has little chance of survival or indeed has no financial means to provide for that child, I'd wonder how "Christian" one really is......

protecting the rights of the unborn as much as is practical is a very christian thing to do. you don't even need to be christian to support such a stance. unrestricted and on demand abortion has no place and is not needed in ireland. abortion in cases of FFA and other extreme circumstances should be brought in as part of the existing legislation that allows abortion in limited circumstances.

Timberrrrrrrr

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

It is logical that if you conceive, you have a baby.

And yet women miscarry all of the time so your "logic" flies out the window.

screamer

If Christians followed everything in the Bible...our societies wouldn't be any better than those of others which we complain about for being repressive and medieval.
There seems to be a thinking that if we legislate for abortion there'll be abortion en masse. I don't believe that for a second. The decision to end a life would be that of the woman or couple involved and no one elses. Just like if the baby would be theirs to rear and no one elses. So the Christians can salve their conscience. And BTW if a Christian wants to force a woman through a pregnancy from rape or where the baby has little chance of survival or indeed has no financial means to provide for that child, I'd wonder how "Christian" one really is......

david75

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

That is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of gender.

Do you have any kids?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

david75 wrote:

Iâ€™d be interested to know the male to female ratio posting in this thread.

That is irrelevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of gender.

david75

I’d be interested to know the male to female ratio posting in this thread.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

It is logical that if you conceive, you have a baby.

Hotblack Desiato

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If you are travelling to England to have an abortion you are attempting to commit an offence as the constitution is currently framed. The right to travel, like the right to freedom is subject to you not being engaged in or have intent to commit a criminal act.

JSJ you are wrong on this one, there is a specific constitutional right to travel for 'services legally provided in another country'* thanks to the amendment in 1992. I agree that it's illogical to give an explicit right to Irish residents to do overseas what is illegal here, but we are where we are until the 8th is repealed.

* Oddly enough though the Gardai have, without the backing of legislation, taken it upon themselves to harass and intimidate people seeking euthanasia in another country. In other words, we have a police force acting outside the law imposing their own version of morality with no legal basis.

Hotblack Desiato

Nick Park wrote: »

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

Thank you. It's something which is hard to describe to people who haven't been there, and something very frequently not talked about.
Women will often have a positive pregnancy test at 3 - 4 weeks but refrain from telling their own mothers, never mind wider family or friends, for quite a while after just in case things go wrong. It goes wrong fairly often but it's not something people can talk about.

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?

We certainly didn't want them to force a religious view upon us. But a little bit of acknowlegement of the loss of the hoped-for pregnancy wouldn't have gone amiss, either. If I could describe our treatment there (and it happened in the same hospital three times) it would be - efficient. They did what was medically necessary but they offered nothing in the way of emotional support or empathy whatsoever - which is totally at odds with the supposed Catholic view of a pregnancy, however early, as being a child.

People had similar years ago when they had to bury stillbirths in unconsecrated ground. The Catholic Church is a strange thing, and it's unchangeable dogma changes quite a lot over time.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

I advocate a safety first policy. Which is worse? To get it wrong by setting the point too early, and thereby inadvertently protecting those who are not human beings? Or to get it wrong by setting the point too late, and thereby killing those who are human beings?

Lets not forget that the cost of getting it wrong by choosing too early a time can also be very high. For example, if we consider the emergency contraception in the form of the morning after pill, the Vatican considers this a form of abortion and wanted it banned on that basis. Irish people sensibly rejected that notion and it is now freely available. This has led to fewer unwanted pregnancies and for ironically, fewer abortions. It is worth remembering that an unwanted pregnancy can cause hardship, suffering and in some cases adverse negative health effects and even death. To ignore this, just 'to play it safe' is in my opinion inhumane in the extreme. If we don't allow legal abortion in a safe environment we're promoting illegal abortion in an uncontrolled environment, or later abortion for those who travel. Women with an unwanted pregnancy that do not wish to carry it through to birth will find a way regardless of the law, and it is unreasonable and inhumane to castigate them and even criminalise them for doing so. I think what many pro-life people miss is that pro-choice people also want to minimise the number of abortions, which after all should be a rarer event than in times past with proper contraception, emergency contraception and education. The difference as I see it between the two sides is that the pro-life side seek to legislate against women with to keep their NIMBY morality in tact, where the pro-choice side are dealing with bringing legislation in line with reality.

In my opinion, history has seen very little evil caused by being too generous in our application of human rights or by broadening them. But incalculable evil has been caused by being selfish in our application of human rights and by narrowing them so as to exclude categories of people.

I would say that this country has a long and shameful history of mistreating women with unwanted pregnancies in the name of defending Christian moral standards.

All I am doing is advocating that Ireland votes for a broader and more generous application of human rights than many countries currently offer. You might disagree with me. But it is telling just how much bile and snide sarcasm is attracted by advocating such a position.

I agree that the vote is to improve human rights and I think that is what will happen. As for snide and sarcastic remarks, when you read posts on this thread such as advocating population control via a legal ban on sex outside marriage, or that abortion should be banned because it goes against God's will, or that the end is near and we're all about to perish for our sins, I imagine even your eyes make the occasional roll to heaven.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

Just because you don't have an explicitly stated right to do something doesn't mean that preventing someone else from doing that thing isn't breaching their rights. You do not have the right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for your moral code.

None of us have a right to dictate how other people behave purely on the basis that it is a bad fit for our moral code.

But we do all have a right to vote and lobby for laws that protect the rights and liberties of others.

As you've pointed out, the crux of this argument centres around the point at which you consider a fertilised human ovum to be a person. Catholic dogma would suggest at point of implantation, others might suggest it is when the foetus becomes viable, etc... such that it is a philosophical (or religious) position rather than a matter of fact. Do you not feel that by taking a pro-life stance you're riding rough-shod over someone else's equally valid position on this in favour of your own position?

No. No more than MLK rode roughshod over someone else's equally valid (in their eyes) position that African-Americans didn't deserve civil rights.

The point at which personhood begins is a philosophical matter. The concept that human rights exist at all is a philosophical matter.

I would suggest that nobody knows when personhood begins. There are dogmatic views (conception, viability, birth) but dogma is no basis on which to legislate.
Therefore I advocate a safety first policy. Which is worse? To get it wrong by setting the point too early, and thereby inadvertently protecting those who are not human beings? Or to get it wrong by setting the point too late, and thereby killing those who are human beings?

In my opinion, history has seen very little evil caused by being too generous in our application of human rights or by broadening them. But incalculable evil has been caused by being selfish in our application of human rights and by narrowing them so as to exclude categories of people.

All I am doing is advocating that Ireland votes for a broader and more generous application of human rights than many countries currently offer. You might disagree with me. But it is telling just how much bile and snide sarcasm is attracted by advocating such a position.

Nick Park

NuMarvel wrote: »

Your statement had nothing to do with the content of my post, because I never claimed there was a human right to abortion. If you somehow misunderstood that you should have clarified instead of making irrelevant comments.

That's how your statement came across. If I misunderstood, then I could hardly clarify if I wasn't aware you had meant something different.
Anyway, no point in squabbling about it now you have clarified that isn't what you were saying. These misunderstandings are easy enough in a thread where multiple contributions are flying around.

Wonderful. I agree. And the only realistic way to make our abortion laws human rights compliant, which we both agree they should be, is by repeal of the 8th.

Which I suppose puts Christians in a bind. Because if they vote no to repeal, they'd be voting against human rights compliant law, but if they vote yes, they may be voting against the tenets of their beliefs.

No, I don't agree that repeal is the only way. Removing constitutional protection of all unborn children to address a comparatively rare number of cases does not make sense. That removes the power from the people and allows politicians to legislate whatever they choose as regards abortion. Given our political system, where one zealot or nut job can hold a minority government or coalition to ransom, that would be foolish in the extreme. History suggests that politicians are not averse to selling the weak and defenceless down the river to save their own grip on power.

The best way to avoid cruel, degrading or unusual treatment is to specify what actually qualifies as such, and then to propose an adjustment to the Constitution that addresses such issues. Or, if it can be dealt with without adjusting the Constitution (as happened in 2013) then to do so.

I don't see that Christians are in a bind at all. If we consider unborn children as people with human rights, then it makes sense to vote to keep the Eighth.

Voting against the tenets of our beliefs is no problem. Most of us (with the exception of a few fruit loops) are perfectly happy to live in a society where our tenets of belief are ignored all the time.