Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

david75 · 21-01-2018 11:58PM

... when we have objective evidence that one in five American Atheists are pro-life.

JC. You really want to use America as a guiding metric?
The same country that elected Trump and has no access to healthcare unless you’re loaded and no access to third level education action unless you’re realky loaded

And the same country that you can buy an assault rifle and go on a killing spree, but hey life is precious, save the unwanted foetus’s!!

Cop on

If ‘but in America...’ is your best argument I suggest you find a new better argument.

PopePalpatine · 21-01-2018 11:59PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yeah, I think a debate on euthanasia would be more palatable than any other topic stemming from the RCC's fading stranglehold on Ireland, e.g. school patronage.

Just to expand on this, I don't think the abortion debate will subside in this country should the 8th get repealed. The debate over whether/when a foetus has "personhood" - which IME is the most common reasoning for one's views on abortion (well, apart from "my god says so") - won't disappear, and besides, judging from the USA it's the one rearguard action that the Religious Right takes.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:06AM

koumi wrote: »

suffering isn't an obligation though and we should all have the right to end unnecessary pain or suffering. We wouldn't let our animals suffer if we knew we could end their pain.

We shouldn't let ill Humans suffer either ... but death isn't the only way to end their suffering ... modern palliative care can practically eliminate suffering and should be used to allow people to die with dignity.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 12:12AM

J C wrote: »

We shouldn't let ill Humans suffer either ... but death isn't the only way to end their suffering ... modern palliative care can practically eliminate suffering and should be used to allow people to die with dignity.

You genuinely don’t have a clue, do you?
Can I come live in this fantasy land you seem to reside in where everything is great?

koumi · 22-01-2018 12:13AM

J C wrote: »

We shouldn't let ill Humans suffer either ... but death isn't the only way to end their suffering ... modern palliative care can practically eliminate suffering and should be used to allow people to die with dignity.

It was ill humans I was thinking about.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:13AM

david75 wrote: »

Here’s the mad thing. I was always pro life. And devoutly Catholic. Then found myself at a young age in a situation real world with a then girlfriend who found out she was pregnant and the impossible situation we found ourselves in and the absolute abuse we both faced and appalling lack of help or assistance we found ourselves in. Shamed for getting ourselves ‘in trouble’ at such an early age and completely stonewalled when it came to trying to access information about options of any kind.
We sorted it out and she made her choice and I supported it. As it was her body and her life and no way did I have the right to say otherwise.
Don’t come at me with BS statistics and nonsense. You haven’t lived it. You will never know about it. I hope anyways. It could change your entire perspective.

Would you force your young daughter to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term? And then hand it over for adoption?
I doubt it somehow

i would hope that this would never arise ... but if it did I would support and love her and help her not to kill my grandchild.
If she was young, with her third level education ahead of her, I would, encourage her to avail of fosterage, so that her eduction could proceed.
All this assumes that her boyfriend was no support to her.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 12:15AM

david75 wrote: »

Where to begin. ‘You and yours’ Have no business interfering with women’s wombs, THAT. Is thinking from the 1930s!! It’s 2018 and you haven’t realised that!

nobody on the pro-life side is interested in interfering with women's wombs. the pro-life side are telling you the facts, that there are only limited circumstances where the killing of the unborn can be justified, because that is the case morally, ethically and factually.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:17AM

koumi wrote: »

It was ill humans I was thinking about.

Good ... because you did refer to how we treat sick animals in your posting ... and my point is that this doesn't translate directly into how we should treat Humans.

SusieBlue · 22-01-2018 12:18AM

J C wrote: »

i would hope that this would never arise ... but if it did I would support and love her and help her not to kill my grandchild.
If she was young, with her third level education ahead of her, I would, encourage her to avail of fosterage, so that her eduction could proceed.
All this assumes that her boyfriend was no support to her.

And what about the poor child surrendered to the foster care system?
I noticed you never bothered mentioning the baby, just focused on yourself and your daughter.
Do you think foster care is a sufficient, appropriate place for a child to feel loved and get a stable, happy upbringing?
Being moved from foster home to foster home with a social worker who works 9-5 as their only guardian?
Is that really in the best interests of the child?
This will be a living, breathing human we’re talking about.
A human you’re advocating dumping into state services so your daughter can finish her education.
Surely she should be giving up her education to embrace motherhood?
A life in state care is hardly in the best interests of the unborn.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:20AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You genuinely don’t have a clue, do you?
Can I come live in this fantasy land you seem to reside in where everything is great?

We live in a fallen world where everything isn't 'great' ... but we should still strive for the best outcomes for everybody.

koumi · 22-01-2018 12:24AM

J C wrote: »

We live in a fallen world where everything isn't 'great' ... but we should still strive for the best outcomes for everybody.

maybe, just maybe, we could help alleviate some of the suffering. You use the words "kill" with ambition but what if you could see it as an act of compassion, sparing a child from a life of suffering.

eviltwin · 22-01-2018 12:30AM

J C wrote: »

i would hope that this would never arise ... but if it did I would support and love her and help her not to kill my grandchild.
If she was young, with her third level education ahead of her, I would, encourage her to avail of fosterage, so that her eduction could proceed.
All this assumes that her boyfriend was no support to her.

But what if despite your support she chose to have an abortion. Would it change the way you see her, would it change your relationship?

J C · 22-01-2018 12:32AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And what about the poor child surrendered to the foster care system?
I noticed you never bothered mentioning the baby, just focused on yourself and your daughter.
Do you think foster care is a sufficient, appropriate place for a child to feel loved and get a stable, happy upbringing?
Being moved from foster home to foster home with a social worker who works 9-5 as their only guardian?
Is that really in the best interests of the child?
This will be a living, breathing human we’re talking about.
A human you’re advocating dumping into state services so your daughter can finish her education.
Surely she should be giving up her education to embrace motherhood?
A life in state care is hardly in the best interests of the unborn.

The reality is that myself and my wife would probably foster the child ... but if we happened to have health issues or some such, at the time, then the child might have enter foster care elsewhere.
... and I know a number of foster parents and the care and love they provide for their foster children is no diferent to what they provide to their own children.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:34AM

eviltwin wrote: »

But what if despite your support she chose to have an abortion. Would it change the way you see her, would it change your relationship?

It wouldn't ... I'd still love and support her ... I'd just be so sad that she decided to kill her child and my grandchild.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:43AM

koumi wrote: »

maybe, just maybe, we could help alleviate some of the suffering. You use the words "kill" with ambition but what if you could see it as an act of compassion, sparing a child from a life of suffering.

... killing somebody isn't our decision to make ... it certainly is a totally disproportionate act even if ... and its a big if, the child may not become all s/he might want to be in later life.
Most people don't achieve everything they set out to achieve ... but that is no reason to pre-empt such subjective 'failure' by killing them.

indeed one persons 'failure' is another persons 'success' in life.

Equally, when it comes to something like Downs Syndrome these children don't suffer significantly ... yet in England they can be aborted right up to birth i.e. long after they are viable outside the uterus.

J C · 22-01-2018 12:54AM

david75 wrote: »

... when we have objective evidence that one in five American Atheists are pro-life.

JC. You really want to use America as a guiding metric?
The same country that elected Trump and has no access to healthcare unless you’re loaded and no access to third level education action unless you’re realky loaded

And the same country that you can buy an assault rifle and go on a killing spree, but hey life is precious, save the unwanted foetus’s!!

Cop on

If ‘but in America...’ is your best argument I suggest you find a new better argument.

... The Atheists are pro-life ... for very practical 'real world' reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Pro-Life

end of the road · 22-01-2018 12:57AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And what about the poor child surrendered to the foster care system?
I noticed you never bothered mentioning the baby, just focused on yourself and your daughter.
Do you think foster care is a sufficient, appropriate place for a child to feel loved and get a stable, happy upbringing?
Being moved from foster home to foster home with a social worker who works 9-5 as their only guardian?
Is that really in the best interests of the child?
This will be a living, breathing human we’re talking about.
A human you’re advocating dumping into state services so your daughter can finish her education.
Surely she should be giving up her education to embrace motherhood?
A life in state care is hardly in the best interests of the unborn.

it's not, but killing the unborn is not the solution to that issue. reforms and improving services are.

koumi wrote: »

maybe, just maybe, we could help alleviate some of the suffering. You use the words "kill" with ambition but what if you could see it as an act of compassion, sparing a child from a life of suffering.

assuming we are talking about abortion on demand, then it's not an act of compassion and sparing a child from a life of suffering. it's killing the unborn because it's inconvenient. there is nothing to say that child will or won't suffer and allowing the unborn to simply be killed just because it may suffer goes against any act of compassion given that it can't necessarily be pre-empted that it will suffer.

david75 · 22-01-2018 01:02AM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You genuinely don’t have a clue, do you?
Can I come live in this fantasy land you seem to reside in where everything is great?

Thanks for pointing that out. I really thought I was imagining him saying that.

Modern palliative care..right. So that cures cancer and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and MS

Can you ask him where the money for that palliative care comes from?

Same place probably. La la land.

J C · 22-01-2018 01:15AM

david75 wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out. I really thought I was imagining him saying that.

Modern palliative care..right. So that cures cancer and Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s and MS

Can you ask him where the money for that palliative care comes from?

Same place probably. La la land.

There might be more money available for all kinds of care, if less unborn children were aborted and thereby grew up and became contributors to the economy.

Nobody is claiming that palliative care cures anything ... it just allows terminally ill people to die pain free and with dignity.

uptherebels · 22-01-2018 01:16AM

end of the road wrote: »

a

i haven't ignored them, they just aren't valid. they were just effectively a roundabout way of saying one wants to be able to have an unrestricted and on demand abortion, something there is no valid justification for.

Well I suppose when you are here to ensure that boards doesn't become a pro choice echo chamber, no point against your agenda is valid.

What about the points raised even in this thread about your persistent use of unsupported claims that you masquerade as fact in an attempt to legitimise your agenda and influence others? Are these also not valid? Because they are ignored aswell.

end of the road · 22-01-2018 01:21AM

uptherebels wrote: »

Well I suppose when you are here to ensure that boards doesn't become a pro choice echo chamber, no point against your agenda is valid.

What about the points raised even in this thread about your persistent use of unsupported claims that you masquerade as fact in an attempt to legitimise your agenda and influence others? Are these also not valid? Because they are ignored aswell.

those points are inaccurate and are just made up in an attempt to de-rail the thread.
i haven't used any unsupported claims and i don't masquerade anything as fact. i do give some well known and widely availible facts yes, however where something isn't fact i make it clear that it's my viewpoint.

koumi · 22-01-2018 01:27AM

J C wrote: »

... killing somebody isn't our decision to make ... it certainly is a totally disproportionate act even if ... and its a big if, the child may not become all s/he might want to be in later life.
Most people don't achieve everything they set out to achieve ... but that is no reason to pre-empt such subjective 'failure' by killing them.

indeed one persons 'failure' is another persons 'success' in life.

Equally, when it comes to something like Downs Syndrome these children don't suffer significantly ... yet in England they can be aborted right up to birth i.e. long after they are viable outside the uterus.

I'm trying to share some real life examples so you might get a better idea of how that might be an act of compassion. We are both in agreement that we live in a "fallen" society so take a woman, who had previously had children but as a result of an abusive situation discovered she was pregnant again. She went on to have this child but because of the previous trauma, she was in no fit state to care for that child. However, without any other options she does her best despite being heavily medicated and with little in the way of state support other than the welfare keeping her and her children afloat. Child protection services stood back on the sidelines and failed to instigate any kind of program which might secure their safety.

One day the woman, most probably under the influence of a toxic concoction of substances, runs to catch a bus to get her child to creche, so she can go and work on a government funded jobpath scheme in order to assure her welfare officer that she is trying to get a job, and in her delayed panic stumbles out in front of a truck. The child and her pram are instantly crushed under the wheels while mother escapes unscathed.

People already considered her as a "fallen" woman, but now she was nothing less than a murderer in their eyes.

Which would have been better? Would that child not have suffered less if her mother had the option to compassionately spare her that short existence?

This is a difficult subject to discuss and while I'm not personally related have been substantially impacted by the events. (suffer from ptsd) Given what I know myself as a parent who struggled to raise a daughter by myself, while I value her life above my own, if I thought I could have saved that child from what she suffered I would not stand in the way of the 8th being repealed.

Our society is not equipped to extend the most basic levels of care to ensure the well being and safety of our most vulnerable and it is unfortunate that legislating for abortion as an act of compassion is a reflection of who we are. (it took a lot to write that out in words)

end of the road · 22-01-2018 01:31AM

koumi wrote: »

I'm trying to share some real life examples so you might get a better idea of how that might be an act of compassion. We are both in agreement that we live in a "fallen" society so take a woman, who had previously had children but as a result of an abusive situation (raped) discovered she was pregnant again. She went on to have this child but because of the previous trauma, she was in no fit state to care for that child. However, without any other options she does her best despite being heavily medicated and with little in the way of state support other than the welfare keeping her and her children afloat. Child protection services stood back on the sidelines and failed to instigate any kind of program which might secure their safety.

One day the woman, most probably under the influence of a toxic concoction of substances, runs to catch a bus to get her child to creche, so she can go and work on a government funded jobpath scheme in order to assure her welfare officer that she is trying to get a job, and in her delayed panic stumbles out in front of a truck. The child and her pram are instantly crushed under the wheels while mother escapes unscathed.

People already considered her as a "fallen" woman, but now she was nothing less than a murderer in their eyes.

Which would have been better? Would that child not have suffered less if her mother had the option to compassionately spare her that short existence?

This is a difficult subject to discuss and while I'm not personally related have been substantially impacted by the events. (suffer from ptsd) Given what I know myself as a parent who struggled to raise a daughter by myself, while I value her life above my own, if I thought I could have saved that child from what she suffered I would not stand in the way of the 8th being repealed.

Our society is not equipped to extend the most basic levels of care to ensure the well being and safety of our most vulnerable and it is unfortunate that legislating for abortion as an act of compassion is a reflection of who we are.

we are very much equipped to insure our services work, government choose not to do it. unrestricted and on demand abortion is not an act of compassion but an act of barbarity, and we would not be legislating for it as an act of compassion.

koumi · 22-01-2018 01:39AM

end of the road wrote: »

we are very much equipped to insure our services work, government choose not to do it. unrestricted and on demand abortion is not an act of compassion but an act of barbarity, and we would not be legislating for it as an act of compassion.

The point being, they do nothing and people suffer. That is what is barbaric and you need to stop forcing women to continue to be subjected to the failure of society.

uptherebels · 22-01-2018 02:16AM

end of the road wrote: »

those points are inaccurate and are just made up in an attempt to de-rail the thread.
i haven't used any unsupported claims and i don't masquerade anything as fact. i do give some well known and widely availible facts yes, however where something isn't fact i make it clear that it's my viewpoint.

Asking you to provide evidence of your claims isntan attempt to derail a thread.
No unsupported claims? Remind me why you got banned from one of the other abortion threads .

end of the road wrote: »

christians and all other religions are united with those of us who are non-religious in knowing that the killing of the unborn unrestricted and on demand is one of the most barbaric acts known to man.

So when you claimed the above can you point out how you showed this was your viewpoint? As claiming all religions are united with you is incorrect as some religions have no official stance on abortion and some are ok with it up to a certain number of weeks. Even JC's link before to show that atheists are pro life showed that Catholics are approx 50/50 in being for/against abortion in most/all cases

end of the road · 22-01-2018 02:24AM

koumi wrote: »

The point being, they do nothing and people suffer. That is what is barbaric

so instead of actually trying to end that suffering, we instead just kill whoever. especially the unborn.

koumi wrote: »

you need to stop forcing women to continue to be subjected to the failure of society.

i'm not forcing women to do anything. it's government who are forcing women to be subjected to the failures of society by refusing to deal with those failures. it's those in favour of abortion on demand who seem to want the unborn to be forced to pay with their lives because society has very easily solvible problems that government refuse to deal with. how the hell is that right considering we rightly vilify those who harm or kill children.
i know that both can be protected equally and where there is a threat to life or of permanent injury or disability, abortion could be offered and that would be justified, unlike the unrestricted and on demand abortion proposed.

koumi · 22-01-2018 02:27AM

is there not an ounce of compassion in your soul? Are you just afraid to touch the truth? Why would anyone in their right mind want to willingly bring a life into what is essentially hell on earth, and then call them murderers for wanting to spare themselves and their children that pain. Do you have children or are you just operating out of a spirit of religiosity? What did Jesus say, where's the bread?

end of the road · 22-01-2018 02:40AM

koumi wrote: »

is there not an ounce of compassion in your soul?

absolutely there is . huge amounts of it, and plenty of posts over my posting history to back it up. however i believe that the killing of the unborn outside extreme circumstances such as a threat of death, permanent injury or disability of the mother, or cases where it wouldn't be viable to cary the baby to term, to be wrong and unjustified. the unborn are the most vunerable in society and i find simply killing them off to be wholly barbaric and wrong. i found no good reason to deviate from that view.

koumi wrote: »

Are you just afraid to touch the truth? Why would anyone in their right mind want to willingly bring a life into what is essentially hell on earth, and then call them murderers for wanting to spare themselves and their children that pain.

which truth would this be. the reality is life in itself isn't easy, but we don't solve the problems by just killing off whoever. otherwise long term we end up slowly but surely extending that to others.

koumi wrote: »

Do you have children or are you just operating out of a spirit of religiosity? What did Jesus say, where's the bread?

i'm not religious myself.

koumi · 22-01-2018 02:42AM

end of the road wrote: »

killing of the unborn
simply killing them

just killing off whoever.

i'm not religious myself.

no <snip>

I'm going to draw the line in the sand right about here.

david75 · 22-01-2018 03:16AM

end of the road wrote: »

so instead of actually trying to end that suffering, we instead just kill whoever. especially the unborn.

i'm not forcing women to do anything. it's government who are forcing women to be subjected to the failures of society by refusing to deal with those failures. it's those in favour of abortion on demand who seem to want the unborn to be forced to pay with their lives because society has very easily solvible problems that government refuse to deal with. how the hell is that right considering we rightly vilify those who harm or kill children.
i know that both can be protected equally and where there is a threat to life or of permanent injury or disability, abortion could be offered and that would be justified, unlike the unrestricted and on demand abortion proposed.

Nobody is fighting for abortion on demand. That isn’t what the referendum Or cause leading to it is about at all. You and the anti choice brigade can try frame it like that as you are but that’s one of the misleading narratives that people see through and it will turn them against your position.

You’re deliberatley misleading people and lying about the entire premise. People aren’t stupid. The same misdirection tactics were tried in the marriage equality referendum. ‘But what about the children??? They deserve a mother and father. ’
We weren’t voting on children or mother or father.
You’re creating a different narrative to suit your aim and not dealing with the actual facts and realities at hand. This is why pro life if it continues this attempt to derail the debate, will fail.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments