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

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

it's my answer to your question. i'm suggesting that the research was done in good faith but i don't think it can reliably prove that the 8th isn't stopping some abortions, just like research saying the opposite can reliably prove that it is stopping some abortions. my personal belief is that some abortions will be stopped by it via the expences involved in traveling to the uk.

It certainly wasn't an answer to my question about 'abortion regret' which has nothing to do with stopping abortions. So please don't pretend it was an answer.

it's proof that the 8th isn't stopping every abortion, yes . something i have never denied. there is a difference between some abortions and every abortion. no law prevents 100% of anything at the end of the day

But you didn't say all abortions, you said "i don't believe that they can 100% prove that the 8th isn't preventing abortions from taking place."

It's established that we can indeed prove it.

Delirium

EirWatchr wrote: »

It's not the source that's at issue, it's the bias of the interpretation of reports and the report methodology that's at issue - in other words, what was actually measured and what can be reliably stated from what was measured, without leaping to sweeping conclusions.

As Mark Twain said, most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination

Instead of being exclusive in what you take from the report, look at everything a report can tell you:

The results on the following page (109) about level of regret regarding the outcome is just as relevant (if not moreso) to what is being discussed. Note though that it does suffer from some of the same shortcomings in methodology as the other report you linked (e.g. it didn't capture how recently before the survey this had all happened and so no conclusion on longer v. shorter term regret can be made).

* Nearly half of women who had an abortion expressed some level of regret. (Fig. 7.12).

And? How does that contradict what I quoted, i.e. that women tend to view having the abortion was the right outcome for them? Contrary to what was being suggested in that there was no data to show women generally don't regret the abortion/view it as the right outcome.

* Men expressed more regrets than women in cases of abortion. (Fig. 7.12)

Unless we're referring to transgender men, men can't physically have an abortion and thus fall outside of the scope of the point I was addressing by posting the linked data.

* For both women and men, the level of regret at giving birth is drastically lower than abortion regret (88-96% had no regrets at all after giving birth). (Fig. 7.12)

87% view having the abortion as the right outcome vs. 98% for giving birth. Not a huge gap IMHO.

* Significantly less men (up to 30% less) than women felt abortion was the right outcome. (Fig. 7.11)

Hardly surprising as they're not pregnant.

* In the case of nearly half of abortions, the man either didn't support the abortion or wasn't told. (Fig. 7.10)

Don't understand what that has to do with 'abortion regret' stats in women who have abortions.

smacl

EirWatchr wrote: »

It's not the source that's at issue, it's the bias of the interpretation of reports and the report methodology that's at issue - in other words, what was actually measured and what can be reliably stated from what was measured, without leaping to sweeping conclusions.

As Mark Twain said, most people use statistics like a drunk man uses a lamppost; more for support than illumination

Instead of being exclusive in what you take from the report, look at everything a report can tell you:

The results on the following page (109) about level of regret regarding the outcome is just as relevant (if not moreso) to what is being discussed. Note though that it does suffer from some of the same shortcomings in methodology as the other report you linked (e.g. it didn't capture how recently before the survey this had all happened and so no conclusion on longer v. shorter term regret can be made).

* Nearly half of women who had an abortion expressed some level of regret. (Fig. 7.12).

* Men expressed more regrets than women in cases of abortion. (Fig. 7.12)

* For both women and men, the level of regret at giving birth is drastically lower than abortion regret (88-96% had no regrets at all after giving birth). (Fig. 7.12)

* Significantly less men (up to 30% less) than women felt abortion was the right outcome. (Fig. 7.11)

* In the case of nearly half of abortions, the man either didn't support the abortion or wasn't told. (Fig. 7.10)

You seem to be leaning rather heavily on that lamppost yourself there. On that same page whatever about having some level of regret, we see that 87% of women in retrospect note that abortion was the correct outcome. Its lower for men at 62%, but then men don't actually go through pregnancy or have abortions so that is hardly comparable. As for levels of regret, when you choose what you consider the least worst option in a very difficult scenario, you may well have some level of regret but that doesn't imply you wouldn't make the same choice if you had the chance to choose again.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

It certainly wasn't an answer to my question about 'abortion regret' which has nothing to do with stopping abortions. So please don't pretend it was an answer.

yes, i agree. i misread your question, please except my apologies.
i have never commented on people's regrets over having an abortion as only they can know whether they regret having an abortion or not.

Delirium wrote: »

But you didn't say all abortions, you said "i don't believe that they can 100% prove that the 8th isn't preventing abortions from taking place."

It's established that we can indeed prove it.

it was a miss type, i meant to say some abortions. i have never ever stated that the 8th stops all abortions, of course it doesn't.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i have given an answer to your question, lots of times across multiple threads. not my problem if you don't like the answer, as far as i'm concerned the question is done and dusted and i have moved on.

.......

This post has been deleted.

EirWatchr

smacl wrote: »

You seem to be leaning rather heavily on that lamppost yourself there. On that same page whatever about having some level of regret, we see that 87% of women in retrospect note that abortion was the correct outcome. Its lower for men at 62%, but then men don't actually go through pregnancy or have abortions so that is hardly comparable. As for levels of regret, when you choose what you consider the least worst option in a very difficult scenario, you may well have some level of regret but that doesn't imply you wouldn't make the same choice if you had the chance to choose again.

What is most certain in that report is the relative differences in results between groups (and in two different years) who were asked the same questions - the only actual illuminating 'results'.

Without access to the actual qualitative research questionnaires, I can no more say what respondents might have understood by 'regret' as others could say what they understood by 'right outcome' (as opposed to 'another preferable outcome').
Any conclusion made about what was never asked is even worse than misinterpretating the results - it is pure speculation. On that we concur. They were not asked "would you make the same choice again". It doesn't sound like they were even asked did you make the right choice.

Which is my point about using statistics and reports to crudely present factual conclusions about these life and death matters and there effects on all involved.

As for the results of the men questioned: it takes a man and woman for a pregnancy. But ... if you're going to play that game, my time is better spent elsewhere.

Cabaal

So, given so many people like to claim we are a "catholic country" and the majority religion on the census is catholic.

What does the avg (most likely) catholic on the street think about the ref?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do-irish-people-have-their-say-on-referendum-36547635.html

Pretty mature responses overall,

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

So, given so many people like to claim we are a "catholic country" and the majority religion on the census is catholic.

What does the avg (most likely) catholic on the street think about the ref?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do-irish-people-have-their-say-on-referendum-36547635.html

Pretty mature responses overall,

the thing is we tell people what to do on a daily basis via the law and few people have an issue with that.
in my personal view, and it's a view shared by many, putting catholic down on the census form doesn't make one catholic. following the teachings and taking part in all the sacraments and other traditions in full is what makes one a catholic. so when we ask what the average catholic thinks, we need to actually ask catholics rather then just any irish person, as most aren't actually catholic.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is we tell people what to do on a daily basis via the law and few people have an issue with that.
in my personal view, and it's a view shared by many, putting catholic down on the census form doesn't make one catholic. following the teachings and taking part in all the sacraments and other traditions in full is what makes one a catholic. so when we ask what the average catholic thinks, we need to actually ask catholics rather then just any irish person, as most aren't actually catholic.

They are Catholics though,
They identify as Catholics, they've been baptised, communion etc.

Perhaps if the catholic church doesn't want people to be catholics they should have an opt out option.....wait, they got rid of that

Perhaps they should get a frequent mass card and if you don't have enough masses you can't use the church's services, or maybe they should copy German Catholic Church and charge a tax and if you don't pay it then you don't get to use the services

I honestly don't think any catholic agree's with 100% of what the church believes, even back in the dark days.
I know catholics who go to mass daily, but they certainly don't agree with the Vatican on plenty of stuff. They are catholic and even help in the church and the priest knows their views too.

david75

Internet person says We’re not real catholics if we don’t take part in Catholicism via mass etc?

Right so. Glad that’s cleared up.

.......

This post has been deleted.

smacl

EirWatchr wrote: »

Without access to the actual qualitative research questionnaires, I can no more say what respondents might have understood by 'regret' as others could say what they understood by 'right outcome' (as opposed to 'another preferable outcome').
Any conclusion made about what was never asked is even worse than misinterpretating the results - it is pure speculation. On that we concur. They were not asked "would you make the same choice again". It doesn't sound like they were even asked did you make the right choice.

Nope. The text is entirely unambiguous here

QCCP2010 wrote:

Respondents were asked how they felt at the time of the survey about the outcome of the crisis pregnancy in terms of whether it was the right thing to do or if they wished another outcome had been chosen (see Figure 7.11).

where possible outcomes were abortion or giving birth and whether they felt the outcome was the right outcome or another outcome would have been preferable. Similarly the survey is very clear in stating that regrets do no imply a wrong choice

QCCP2010 wrote:

Respondents were asked whether they had any regrets at the time of the survey about the outcome that was chosen (see Figure 7.12). It is important to note that this question did not tease out the reasons for any regret. For example, it may be that a respondent’s regret is that an outcome was necessary at that time (rather than that the wrong choice was made); or that if circumstances had been different, a different choice might have been made

Both the statistics and the supporting text are quite clear here.

As for the results of the men questioned: it takes a man and woman for a pregnancy. But ... if you're going to play that game, my time is better spent elsewhere.

Though as you say, in many cases the man wasn't told (29%), which could be for various reasons. Some include that he wasn't interested or willing to take any responsibility, the pregnancy could be a result of a rape or incest, or simply that the man and woman were no longer romantically involved. Less then half of the women interviewed that had an abortion had supportive sexual partners. As that context, it is hardly reasonable to consider the mans feelings as comparable to the woman's.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Unless they happen to be women.

Remind me again how you have a say over a woman’s body?

While you’re at it remind me how your level of ‘faith’ is any less frightening than sharia law?

The basic tenet of Christianity ... to love one's neighbour as oneself applies equally to women Christians as it does to men Christians.
... and an unborn child is surely deserving of the same love as any other Human Being anybody may come across.
... we all have a say over how everybody uses their bodies ... when such 'usage' interferes with the rights of others.

... and as my faith is one of love and forgiveness for my fellow man (and woman) ... it has nothing in common with sharia law.

... and loving your unborn child as yourself can never justify procured abortion (except in absolute extremis).

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Less of the unfounded and un-parliamentary language ... please.

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

So, given so many people like to claim we are a "catholic country" and the majority religion on the census is catholic.

What does the avg (most likely) catholic on the street think about the ref?

Pretty mature responses overall,

'Im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do'

... a bit of a cop-out actually ... just replace 'abortion' with something else and see what I mean.

'I'm not in favour of drink driving ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of violence ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of inequality ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

Delirium

J C wrote: »

'Im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do'

... a bit of a cop-out actually ... just replace 'abortion' with something else and see what I mean.

Sure, let's have a go.

'I'm not in favour of Christianity ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of marriage ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of having children ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

So, to avoid a 'cop-out' we'll ban Christianity and marriage as well as legally requiring all adults to have children.

Because respecting other peoples perspectives is a bad thing! And we can't be having that! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Sure, let's have a go.

'I'm not in favour of Christianity ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of marriage ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of having children ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

So, to avoid a 'cop-out' we'll ban Christianity and marriage as well as legally requiring all adults to have children.

Because respecting other peoples perspectives is a bad thing! And we can't be having that! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

These are individual voluntary choices ... which harm nobody else, when made or not made.

... abortion always kills the unborn child ... which is harming somebody else.

Abortion is more like drink driving, engaging in violence and treating other people inequitably ... indeed abortion is a life destroying violent act that kills a totally vulnerable and innocent unborn child.
The 8th is a piece of equality legislation ... that balances the very life of the unborn ... with the relatively minor inconvenience of bringing a pregnancy to term ... in most cases.
... and, as has already been said on this thread, situations of extremis can be (and have been) legislated for under the 8th.
... and if more is required, then that should be enacted.

The decision facing the Irish people, however, is to vote to remove the 8th, thereby removing all protection for the unborn ... with unlimited abortion to 12 weeks being enacted immmediately ... and nothing stopping abortion being introduced right up to birth ... as currently is allowed (and done) under English legislation for things like Cleft Palate and Downs Syndrome, for example.

The current English Law allows abortion up to the point of birth for situations where:-

" there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

... a piece of eugenics legislation that would be hard to surpass in its blatant discrimination against unborn children with disabilities ... by differentially killing them.

Odyssey 2005

J C wrote: »

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.

Course they can...watch.!

end of the road

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Course they can...watch.!

christians cannot go against fundamental teachings of the religion. i'm non-religious myself and i know this. they cannot vote for abortion on demand.

J C

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Course they can...watch.!

They may do so ... but if they are Christian, they cannot in conscience, vote to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God to not kill innocent Human life.
It would also be in total contravention of the other great tenet of the Christian Faith to love your (born and unborn) neighbour as yourself.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

They may do so ... but if they are Christian, they cannot in conscience, vote to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God to not kill innocent Human life.
It would also be in total contravention of the other great tenet of the Christian Faith to love your (born and unborn) neighbour as yourself.

I love my sisters and friends and aunts and my mother than I love any unborn ‘neighbor’.

I couldn’t possibly imaging forcing motherhood on someone who didn’t want it just because it isn’t something I would do.

I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right to dictate what another woman does with the contents of her womb.
Christians should allow each person to make their own decision without forcing their beliefs into others.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I love my sisters and friends and aunts and my mother than I love any unborn ‘neighbor’.

I couldn’t possibly imaging forcing motherhood on someone who didn’t want it just because it isn’t something I would do.

I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right to dictate what another woman does with the contents of her womb.
Christians should allow each person to make their own decision without forcing their beliefs into others.

the thread is about whether christians can vote for abortion. not about other's beliefs or christians forcing beliefs on others.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I love my sisters and friends and aunts and my mother than I love any unborn ‘neighbor’.

You have a natural love for your kin ... but Christianity demands that you love all people, including people you have no personal relationship with.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I couldn’t possibly imaging forcing motherhood on someone who didn’t want it just because it isn’t something I would do.

... and you think that forcibly killing their unborn child is the moral alternative?
Nobody is talking about forcing motherhood on these women ... they have become pregnant ... and now there are two lives in play ... in most cases a perfectly healthy woman and a perfectly healthy unborn child.
All the woman has to do is to let nature take its course ... and when the child is born ... she can keep it or put it up for fosterage or adoption, depending on her circumstances ... and her wishes.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right to dictate what another woman does with the contents of her womb.
Christians should allow each person to make their own decision without forcing their beliefs into others.

As a society we regulate the behaviour of our fellow citizens on far more trivial things than abortion. For example, we rigidly enforce arbitrary speed limits, in the belief that this will reduce road accidents and improve the out-turn of accidents that do occur.

Abortion always kills an unborn child ... and we therefore have an even greater right and obligation to enforce legislation regulating this killing.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You have a natural love for your kin ... but Christianity demands that you love all people, including people you have no personal relationship with.

It's for that very reason many people can't get on board with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when she doesn't consent to it.

david75

Delirium wrote: »

It's for that very reason many people can't get on board with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when she doesn't consent to it.

Forcing. Key word there JC. And yes our current version of Christianity is forcing women against their will and is no better or different than sharia law.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

You have a natural love for your kin ... but Christianity demands that you love all people, including people you have no personal relationship with.

So if someone was to kill one of my children tomorrow you are saying i should "love" them?

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

christians cannot go against fundamental teachings of the religion. i'm non-religious myself and i know this. they cannot vote for abortion on demand.

Nonsense,

You keep saying they cannot, this is a very misleading statement to make and very inaccurate.

You very clearly mean "should" instead cannot.
a Christian can do whatever they want at the end of the day.

A Christian can commit rape for example , it would be very silly to claim a Christian cannot commit rape. It would be more accurate to say a Christian should not commit a rape.

Any Christian can vote to repeal and enable our government to legislate, there's nothing stopping them doing so, just like any Christian can and majority did vote for marriage equality.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,

You keep saying they cannot, this is a very misleading statement to make a very inaccurate.

You very clearly mean "should" instead cannot.
a Christian can do whatever they want.

well i actually do mean cannot in a religious context.
of course legally they can vote whatever way they want but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.