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

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

By opposing a woman’s right to choose. For a million reasons she may not be able to raise a child or have the capacity within her life financially or structurally.
Forcing a woman to have a child is damaging that woman’s life.

There's plenty of childless couples looking to adopt!

J C

mrsoundie wrote: »

However, the Ten Commandments were not written for Christians. They did not exist at the time that these were supposedly written.

They are the eternal Law of God.
Anyway, they only apply to Judao-Christians ... and there are many other good reasons for Atheists and Secularists to be pro-life.

http://www.secularprolife.org/

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/03/11/yes-there-are-pro-life-atheists-out-there-heres-why-im-one-of-them/

Quote:-
"There was a time when the lines seemed clearer and the slogans said everything. Pro-lifers were Jesus-loving Pope-followers with a passion for sticking rosaries on ovaries, and atheists were quick to respond with “Keep your theology off my biology!”

But then lines began to blur. Atheist and civil libertarian journalist Nat Hentoff said that “Being without theology isn’t the slightest hindrance to being pro-life.” Atheist philosophy professor Don Marquis declared abortion is “immoral” because it denies developing fetuses “a future like ours.” The host of CFI’s Point of Inquiry, Robert M. Price, author of books like Jesus is Dead and The Case Against the Case for Christ, called abortion “second-degree murder” on one of his podcasts.

Well, at least we still have the “Four Horsemen” safely in our ranks, right? Not quite. Even our beloved Christopher Hitchens considered “the occupant of the womb as a candidate member of society.” He also argued that “the unborn entity has a right on its side” and identified himself as involved with the pro-life movement.

What the heck are we atheists supposed to do with all our “Keep your rosaries…” stickers now?"

... good question!!!

... it seems now that an Atheist cannot, in conscience, vote for unlimited abortion either.

david75

J C wrote: »

How so?

... and I'd be interested in your answer to my post as well ... given that there are atheist pro-life advocates.

By opposing a woman’s right to choose. For a million reasons she may not be able to raise a child or have the capacity within her life financially or structurally.
Forcing a woman to have a child is damaging that woman’s life.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
If there isn't a God ... and it all ends when we die ... then is it not arguably more imortant that we don't kill other Human Beings, thereby depriving them of whatever time nature and fate would otherwise give them?

At least a Christian woman can find some solace in their belief that their unborn child has gone to a better place.

... and I'm all for keeping out of other people's decisions, unless they are affecting other people.

david75
You’re contradicting yourself with that last line.

How so?

... and I'd be interested in your answer to my post as well ... given that there are atheist pro-life advocates.

J C

smacl wrote: »

I'm wouldn't be so sure. A man telling a woman that she must go through a pregnancy, regardless of the damage it does her, because he feels that abortion is immoral and goes against his religious beliefs, is about as misogynistic as it gets. Very easy to take the high moral ground when you're not actually the one who'll ever have to do any of the suffering or bear any of the hardship.

... so all pro-life women are 'mysogenists' as well ... eh?

... and nobody is saying that she must go through with her pregnancy 'regardless of the damage it does to her'.

This is a classic 'bait and switch' style of debate ... you 'bait' the reader with the idea that there are desperate damaging situations that some pregnant women find themselves in ... and when most right thinking people start agreeing with you ... you 'switch' to a solution of unlimited abortion (which isn't required to address the hard case reasons first cited).

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

You seem rather determined to establish an association with abortion and slavery there Nick, but if you think about it trying to force a woman to go through a pregnancy against her will, to suit your philosophical point of view, regardless of the untold suffering it may cause her, is actually far closer to enslavement. Perhaps 'pro-life' could be better termed 'pro-misogyny'.

it's not close to enslavement at all. at the end of the day, the unborn have a right to life and unless the pregnancy is a threat to the life of the mother or there is another extreme reason then she does not have a right to kill it.

smacl wrote: »

I'm wouldn't be so sure. A man telling a woman that she must go through a pregnancy, regardless of the damage it does her, because he feels that abortion is immoral and goes against his religious beliefs, is about as misogynistic as it gets. Very easy to take the high moral ground when you're not actually the one who'll ever have to do any of the suffering or bear any of the hardship.

there are laws in place which state we cannot kill. as much as a person may annoy us or be extremely hateful toards us, we cannot kill them.

david75

J C wrote: »

If there isn't a God ... and it all ends when we die ... then is it not arguably more imortant that we don't kill other Human Beings, thereby depriving them of whatever time nature and fate would otherwise give them?

At least a Christian woman can find some solace in their belief that their unborn child has gone to a better place.

... and I'm all for keeping out of other people's decisions, unless they are affecting other people.

You’re contradicting yourself with that last line.
I’ve often wondered about those coming from a faith based perspective on this and other issues. Historically the church has controlled our minds and bodies and imposes its morality on us. We’ve seen the church all but abandoned in Ireland. For the most part, We’re token catholics now who turn up for weddings and funerals.
So when big issues like abortion or marriage equality come up we see the remaining faithful (and the same usual self appointed mouthpieces for the faith) get on the high horse on tv/radio/press and tell us we’re evil and wrong for wanting change, but they don’t seem to realise it’s completely counter productive and they’re damaging the very position they’re looking to defend.

This happened all over the marriage equality referendum. Certain people opposed to it on tv and radio I think did more to sway undecided voters to yes just by being so reductive and outdated and obnoxiously preaching about the whole thing.

I can see this referendum playing out the same way. Mostly men debating it and telling women they’re unqualified to make their own decisions for themselves.
If the pro life position is to have any chance at all it’ll drop this patronising messaging and certainly drop any position based in faith, using commandments or ‘it’s against the will of god’ really isn’t going to work in 2018 when almost our entire population do not actively participate in or identify with the catholic faith anymore. Plus it’s a bloody redundant way to approach it. ‘Cos god said so!’

Eh, no.

J C

Harika wrote: »

There was an US slogan for Planned Parenthood, something like "Easy to access, hardly used" stating that if you want an abortion you can have it without any hassle, but there will be systems in place that will give you all support you need to get through the pregnancy and raise a child, so that you don't want one.

... and 60 million abortions have occurred in the US since 1973 ... so while the 'easy to access' seems to be true allright ... the 'hardly used' doesn't seem to have happened.

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

mrsoundie

J C wrote: »

Of course I can make up my own mind ... but I utilise basic principles when doing so.
For a Christian, basic principles include the 10 Commandments ... although there are many more 'real world' reasons, including Human Rights, for limiting abortion than just the principle of 'thou shall not kill' ... although it is a good principle to live by whatever your religious persuasion ... or none.

However, the Ten Commandments were not written for Christians. They did not exist at the time that these were supposedly written.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

The twelve weeks is the limit there JC. Unrestricted access to abortion within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy, and abortion under certain circumstances beyond that is what is being considered. Unlimited abortion implies unrestricted access to abortion services at any stage during the pregnancy. The title of your thread is misleading in this regard. If you mean within 12 weeks, you should maybe edit the title of the thread.

i disagree that the thread title needs changing, as chances are the abortion lobby will scream and scream until they get unlimited abortion. i cannot see the limit remaining at 12 weeks and a bit more in limited circumstances, it will highly likely rise given government's history of giving certain lobby groups everything they want.

smacl

J C wrote: »

You will find it difficult to make that one stick, given the number of women in the pro-life movement ... and the number of women hurt by abortion.

I'm wouldn't be so sure. A man telling a woman that she must go through a pregnancy, regardless of the damage it does her, because he feels that abortion is immoral and goes against his religious beliefs, is about as misogynistic as it gets. Very easy to take the high moral ground when you're not actually the one who'll ever have to do any of the suffering or bear any of the hardship.

J C

smacl wrote: »

You seem rather determined to establish an association with abortion and slavery there Nick, but if you think about it trying to force a woman to go through a pregnancy against her will, to suit your philosophical point of view, regardless of the untold suffering it may cause her, is actually far closer to enslavement. Perhaps 'pro-life' could be better termed 'pro-misogyny'.

You will find it difficult to make that one stick, given the number of women in the pro-life movement ... and the number of women hurt by abortion.

J C

bilbot79 wrote: »

There you all go outsourcing your moral values again. Can you not make up your own mind?

Of course I can make up my own mind ... but I utilise basic principles when doing so.
For a Christian, basic principles include the 10 Commandments ... although there are many more 'real world' reasons, including Human Rights, for limiting abortion than just the principle of 'thou shall not kill' ... although it is a good principle to live by whatever your religious persuasion ... or none.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

It's like those who support the reintroduction of capital punishment getting upset at being called 'pro-death penalty'. After all, they don't want every criminal to be executed - they just want the judge to have a choice. So they should be called 'pro-choice' too.

As for those of us who think slavery should be illegal - we're 'anti-choice' because we are so intolerant as to argue that people shouldn't have the choice whether to keep slaves or not.

You seem rather determined to establish an association with abortion and slavery there Nick, but if you think about it trying to force a woman to go through a pregnancy against her will, to suit your philosophical point of view, regardless of the untold suffering it may cause her, is actually far closer to enslavement. Perhaps 'pro-life' could be better termed 'pro-misogyny'.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

You know, I think that's for her to decide without pressure from people with an agenda. It's not for me to tell another person what's right for them, only they can make that choice. I do know though that whatever she decides she'd have my full support.

Why do you give a 'blank cheque' to women, who want to kill their unborn children?
No man would say that whatever any man does, including killing his children, would have his full support.
... the reverse would very definitely be the case.

I'm sure there are very hard cases that Solomon would find difficult to advise on ... but I'm equally sure that some women abort, simply because they can ... and that is the type of abortion proposed after the repeal of the 8th.
You clearly don't seem to differentiate between both situations.

J C

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.

If there isn't a God ... and it all ends when we die ... then is it not arguably more imortant that we don't kill other Human Beings, thereby depriving them of whatever time nature and fate would otherwise give them?

At least a Christian woman can find some solace in their belief that their unborn child has gone to a better place.

... and I'm all for keeping out of other people's decisions, unless they are affecting other people.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

... and why wouldn't she want her child to be fostered/adopted if the alternative was to kill it?
Would fosterage/adoption not be best for both her and her child?

You know, I think that's for her to decide without pressure from people with an agenda. It's not for me to tell another person what's right for them, only they can make that choice. I do know though that whatever she decides she'd have my full support.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for adoption and fostering but only if the woman herself wants it.

I'm all for financial supports too if that helps.

Ultimately though there are women who just dont want to be pregnant and nothing we can give them will change that. They should be able to make that choice.

I'm sure that there are parents who can't cope with rearing their children ... and as a society we help them, up to and including fosterage, if they can't cope at all.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm all for adoption and fostering but only if the woman herself wants it.

... and why wouldn't she want her child to be fostered/adopted if the alternative was to kill it?
Would fosterage/adoption not be best for both her and her child?

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

I want people to have access to abortion yes. Am I pro abortion? No not at all. It's possible to be personally against something but to support the freedom for others to do so. It's about respecting diversity of opinions.

... and I'm all for respecting diversity of opinions as well ... as long as the appliance of such opinions don't affect other people's rights ... in this case the unborn.

For example, if somebody was to campaign for the introduction of slavery, on the basis that they didn't want to own slaves themselves ... but they wanted other people to have the choice to own slaves, if they wanted to ... what would s/he be called?
... pro-choice or pro-slavery?

I think that most people would 'connect the dots' very quickly.

Timberrrrrrrr

end of the road wrote: »

it can't be disputed. you have tried to dispute it but have failed each time.
of course we would be having the referendum because some in this country think it's okay, unrestricted and on demand, to kill the most vunerable, the unborn. it's not and it never will be whether the 8th is repealed or not. it goes against humanity and all that is right, and everything humanity stands for. this fact unites both religious and non-religious who see unrestricted and on demand abortion for what it actually is

From the poster who said he/she wants the guards to baton charge men/women/children if they blocked roads in protest against the Garth Brookes concert :pac:

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

People die all the time ... but except in extremis, killing them isn't allowed, either

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

Maybe there should be more support for that.
... and I have always believed that there should be a child tax allowance for working parents, like yourself.
I am not judging any woman who has had an abortion ... far from it, I have absolute compassion for her, that she could only see one solution for her pregnancy because of where she found herself.
In this regard the availabilty of fosterage or adoption could be something that a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy should look at. It would certainly be better for her child than aborting it.

I'm all for adoption and fostering but only if the woman herself wants it.

I'm all for financial supports too if that helps.

Ultimately though there are women who just dont want to be pregnant and nothing we can give them will change that. They should be able to make that choice.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

I want people to have access to abortion yes. Am I pro abortion? No not at all. It's possible to be personally against something but to support the freedom for others to do so. It's about respecting diversity of opinions.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

There is no public support for that. You know the kinds of comments people make when those on welfare look for more money. And there is nothing for working families, I work and can manage but another child would mean one of us would have to stay home and we just can't afford that. So judging people who feel they have no other option is pointless because they are the ones who have to make the hard choices based on what's best for them.

Maybe there should be more support for that.
... and I have always believed that there should be a child tax allowance for working parents, like yourself.
I am not judging any woman who has had an abortion ... far from it, I have absolute compassion for her, that she could only see one solution for her pregnancy because of where she found herself.
In this regard the availabilty of fosterage or adoption could be something that a woman with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy should look at. It would certainly be better for her child than aborting it.

Harika

J C wrote: »

I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

You again mis-represent the pro-choice stance, that was already clarified before. :rolleyes:
But you make a good argument where drugs were decriminalized, Czech/Portugal/Holland/parts of the US. What would you expect? More people taking more drugs, but exact the opposite is happening, less people are taking less drugs.

Nick Park

J C wrote: »

I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

It's like those who support the reintroduction of capital punishment getting upset at being called 'pro-death penalty'. After all, they don't want every criminal to be executed - they just want the judge to have a choice. So they should be called 'pro-choice' too.

As for those of us who think slavery should be illegal - we're 'anti-choice' because we are so intolerant as to argue that people shouldn't have the choice whether to keep slaves or not.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

No I'm not pro abortion so don't try and misrepresent me. I'm pro choice. I believe every individual should be free to make their own decision. There are lots of things I personally dislike but I don't believe I have the right to force anyone to live by my morality.

I have no wish to misrepresent you ... I'm talking about the validity of the term 'pro-choice' when it comes to abortion.

If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.
They would be asking for the legalisation of Cocaine use ... and would therefore be pro-drugs.

Similarly, why is the 'pro-choice' movement so coy about what they actually wish to achieve, which is unlimited abortion?

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

Fair point ... and indeed, as a society, we need to do much more for such young women than just offering them an abortion.
Indeed to reduce abortion, wherever it is being done, we need to do much more in terms of support for pregnant women.

There is no public support for that. You know the kinds of comments people make when those on welfare look for more money. And there is nothing for working families, I work and can manage but another child would mean one of us would have to stay home and we just can't afford that. So judging people who feel they have no other option is pointless because they are the ones who have to make the hard choices based on what's best for them.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

The supports are not enough if you want to go to college or work. It wouldn't cover childcare. It's something to keep people afloat but that's all it is. If you have aspirations beyond a life on welfare you will struggle to make that happen if you are on welfare.

Fair point ... and indeed, as a society, we need to do much more for such young women than just offering them an abortion.
Indeed to reduce abortion, wherever it is being done, we need to do much more in terms of support for pregnant women.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

... so you're not pro-abortion ... yet you're campaigning to make abortion freely available.
You may describe yourself as you please, but the result you're campaigning for is unlimited abortion.
If somebody were campaigning for the right to choose to use Cocaine ... I don't think it would be unreasonable to call such a stance to be pro-drugs ... and not merely the choice to use Class A drugs.

No I'm not pro abortion so don't try and misrepresent me. I'm pro choice. I believe every individual should be free to make their own decision. There are lots of things I personally dislike but I don't believe I have the right to force anyone to live by my morality.