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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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

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.

... its nowhere near as damaging as killing her child would be to the child ... and if she cannot raise the child she can have it fostered or adopted ... and some time in the future she may even be re-united with her child.

Abortion is a 'council of despair' ... unless there are serious reasons for aborting.

... and the reasons you cite above, occur after the child is born ... and adoption / fosterage is available to address these issues.

SusieBlue

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

There's plenty of childless couples looking to adopt!

There is extremely limited domestic adoption in Ireland. We have long term fostering in its place. The option to adopt is only available after long term fostering of the child.

That’s why when couples adopt in Ireland, it’s done internationally from countries such as India, Vietnam, Russia, etc.

koumi

J C wrote: »

... its nowhere near as damaging as killing her child would be to the child ... and if she cannot raise the child she can have it fostered or adopted ... and some time in the future she may even be re-united with her child.

Abortion is a 'council of despair' ... unless there are serious reasons for aborting.

I disagree. I was with you right up to here but as someone speaking from experience, it's not. It's actually just prolonged suffering and the affects on both the parent and childs health are compromised, and yes even up to and including death.
In an ideal world I would wholeheartedly support your suggestion but mans inhumanity to man utterly knows no bounds and to force a life of suffering, poverty and in some cases abuse and trauma on a woman and her child because you believe it is a better alternative is just wrong.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

There is extremely limited domestic adoption in Ireland. We have long term fostering in its place. The option to adopt is only available after long term fostering of the child.

That’s why when couples adopt in Ireland, it’s done internationally from countries such as India, Vietnam, Russia, etc.

Demand for adopted children is vastly in excess of mothers wanting to put their children up for adoption.
... and if a mother reckons that fosterage is the way to go, that is available as well ... so there is absolutely no socio-economic reason for aborting.

end of the road

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.

except nobody is opposing a woman’s right to choose. we are opposing her being given the right to kill the unborn without question and without reason which is absolutely just. being told you cannot kill the unborn unless it's within extreme circumstances is not damaging whereas abortion on demand is . if we were talking about prohibiting abortion even in extreme circumstances then you would have a point but nobody is proposing that should happen.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

There is extremely limited domestic adoption in Ireland. We have long term fostering in its place. The option to adopt is only available after long term fostering of the child.

That’s why when couples adopt in Ireland, it’s done internationally from countries such as India, Vietnam, Russia, etc.

and again, we should change that system. the system can be changed, the killed unborn can't be unkilled. the solution to systemic problems is to deal with those problems, killing isn't the solution.

J C

koumi wrote: »

I disagree. I was with you right up to here but as someone speaking from experience, it's not. It's actually just prolonged suffering and the affects on both the parent and childs health are compromised, and yes even up to and including death.
In an ideal world I would wholeheartedly support your suggestion but mans inhumanity to man utterly knows no bounds and to force a life of suffering, poverty and in some cases abuse and trauma on a woman and her child because you believe it is a better alternative is just wrong.

I don't understand ... how would fosterage or adoption cause these problems?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

except nobody is opposing a woman’s right to choose.

There ya go contradicting yourself again

koumi

J C wrote: »

I don't understand ... how would fosterage or adoption cause these problems?

we had magdalen laundries which took care of these concerns years ago, the suggestion is hardly a new one. Do you still not consider the suffering involved for the mother, who with no other option must go through birth and then hand over her child and just be ok with that? Like, she just walks out of a place, job done and get on with life? It is inconceivable that you believe that to be more humane.

As for children who end up in either foster care or adopted in these circumstances, they are often left bearing the scars too and can have difficulty maneuvering through life dealing with issues of abandonment and rejection.

These are just the tip of the ice berg, the conditions which caused and brought about systemic abuse of women and children in state run institutions was born out the same principle.

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

There ya go contradicting yourself again

What he means is her right to choose to harm somebody else ... unless there are substantive reasons for doing so.

david75

J C wrote: »

... its nowhere near as damaging as killing her child would be to the child ... and if she cannot raise the child she can have it fostered or adopted ... and some time in the future she may even be re-united with her child.

Abortion is a 'council of despair' ... unless there are serious reasons for aborting.

... and the reasons you cite above, occur after the child is born ... and adoption / fosterage is available to address these issues.

Adoption is a seriously flawed argument. It’s almost impossible to adopt in Ireland. Look it up.
You’re also missing another point. So we force the mother to give birth and you don’t think giving the baby up won’t damage her mentally?
We’re making flawed and uninformed arguments using broad strokes about women’s lives when every single scenario is totally different and ultimately none of our business.
We won’t be there to help her raise a child she didn’t want. To pay for its upbringing. To be a guide and a parent to it.
So imposing a severely flawed morality from a great remove on a woman’s and all women’s lives is simply wrong.

This is what the majority of people are thinking and those opposed to repealing the 8th haven’t seemed to realise.
This is why the 8th will be repealed. In a modern society a redundant self appointed moral minority imposing their moral view on all society, just won’t fly.

This is why I suggested pro life so called should look at changing tactics in my previous post.

J C

koumi wrote: »

we had magdalen laundries which took care of these concerns years ago, the suggestion is hardly a new one. Do you still not consider the suffering involved for the mother, who with no other option must go through birth and then hand over her child and just be ok with that? Like, she just walks out of a place, job done and get on with life? It is inconceivable that you believe that to be more humane.

Nobody is saying that it is perfect ... but isn't it better than killing the child ... and nobody is advocating a return to Laundries ... just an option of adoption/fosterage where a mother cannot cope

koumi wrote: »

As for children who end up in either foster care or adopted in these circumstances, they are often left bearing the scars too and can have difficulty maneuvering through life dealing with issues of abandonment and rejection.

Most adopted children go on to live successful lives ... and the alternative of killing them certainly doesn't compare.

koumi wrote: »

These are just the tip of the ice berg, the conditions which caused and brought about systemic abuse of women and children in state run institutions was born out the same principle.

No, it was brought about by a society that wanted to maintain the fascade that we were all 'perfect' (on societies terms at the time) ... and it got rid of the public evidence that we weren't.

We need to value pregnant women ... instead of devaluing them and their unborn children with abortion.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Demand for adopted children is vastly in excess of mothers wanting to put their children up for adoption.
... and if a mother reckons that fosterage is the way to go, that is available as well ... so there is absolutely no socio-economic reason for aborting.

Do you actually know anyone who has grown up in the foster care system in this country?
It’s a fate I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy.
I can’t comprehend why anyone would deem a life in the care system as an option or even as a positive thing.
Never mind the fact that state services are withdrawn the minute the child turns 18, and then they are literally out in the world on their own. There is a huge correlation between children who grew up in the care system and homeless young adults.
But that’s a topic for another thread.

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

What he means is her right to choose to harm somebody else ... unless there are substantive reasons for doing so.

Having an abortion at 12 weeks isn't harming somebody else either

SusieBlue

And just to add, with the improvement of fertility treatments and IVF there is nowhere near as much demand for adoption as there once was.

There simply aren’t enough parents out there looking to adopt, and those that are, do so internationally because it’s easier and cheaper.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Adoption is a seriously flawed argument. It’s almost impossible to adopt in Ireland. Look it up.
You’re also missing another point. So we force the mother to give birth and you don’t think giving the baby up won’t damage her mentally?
We’re making flawed and uninformed arguments using broad strokes about women’s lives when every single scenario is totally different and ultimately none of our business.
We won’t be there to help her raise a child she didn’t want. To pay for its upbringing. To be a guide and a parent to it.

If she cannot do it ... somebody else will.
... and her child is still alive and she can meet up with them later on.
Its a win-win for everybody ... whereas abortion is a lose-lose.

I cannot see how putting ones child up for adoption / fosterage is a greater source of pain than killing it.
We seem to have moved from a position of adoption in all cases of single motherhood ... to practically no case.
Should it not lie somewhere in-between?

david75 wrote: »

So imposing a severely flawed morality from a great remove on a woman’s and all women’s lives is simply wrong.

This is what the majority of people are thinking and those opposed to repealing the 8th haven’t seemed to realise.
This is why the 8th will be repealed. In a modern society a redundant self appointed moral minority imposing their moral view on all society, just won’t fly.

This is why I suggested pro life so called should look at changing tactics in my previous post.

Are these Atheists / Secularists also part of the "redundant self appointed moral minority imposing their moral view on all society" that you claim to exist?
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=105910734&postcount=884

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

Having an abortion at 12 weeks isn't harming somebody else either

... it is, unless you deny that this isn't somebody else.

https://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-12-weeks

Quote:-
"1. Reflexes are developing. Your baby's already busy kicking and stretching. Soon his fingers will open and close.
2. Intestines in place. Your baby's intestines, which have grown so rapidly they protrude into the umbilical cord, are moving back into the abdominal cavity.
3. Your baby looks practically human. His eyes have moved from the sides to the front of the head and his ears are where they should be."