Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Cabaal · 02-02-2018 12:00AM

end of the road wrote: »

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.

They have free will to vote as they wish, they don't have to agree with the Bible 100%, a large amount of Christians don't agree with everything in it. That's the hard reality.

Anything else is just words claiming they can't, which are baseless and have zero enforcement to stop them from actually voting as they see fit. So again the correct word is "should"

They should not vote xyz way because of God.

Cabaal · 02-02-2018 12:03AM

end of the road wrote: »

but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.

Also now you've changed to "must", what happened to cannot?

Must and should are in the same ballpark,
are you just going to admit your use of cannot was incorrect and inaccurate?

smacl · 02-02-2018 09:03AM

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.

With respect, that is an odd comment for a non-religious person to make. Whether or not you consider someone to be a Christian based on how rigidly they adhere to the rules of their church really has no bearing on their religious identity. Christians can and do go against fundamental teachings of their religion all the time, wouldn't be a whole lot of point of having notions such as sin if they didn't. Similarly, if we look at other changes in our society, we see Catholics availing of contraception, morning after pills and voting for same sex marriage all against the stated position of their church. Are they no longer Catholics as a result? Very many women in this countries that have had abortions are also Christians. Do you consider them no longer to be Christians, and more importantly, does their church?

I say this as a life-long atheist myself, and my experience has been that you can't predict someones behaviour base on their nominal religious affiliation.

smacl · 02-02-2018 09:07AM

Cabaal wrote: »

Anything else is just words claiming they can't, which are baseless and have zero enforcement to stop them from actually voting as they see fit. So again the correct word is "should"

They should not vote xyz way because of God.

Or maybe even 'the Church instructs and demands that they vote xyz', as it has in the recent past to little effect.

pitifulgod · 02-02-2018 09:17AM

end of the road wrote: »

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.

The exact same argument could have been used against the marriage referendum. I know highly religious people who simply don't agree with aspects of Catholicism, it's applicable to much of the state's Catholics I imagine.

Delirium · 02-02-2018 09:43AM

J C wrote: »

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.

So a pregnant woman is equivalent to a drunk person? And having abortion is drink driving? Interesting to see that you consider a pregnant woman to have impaired judgement (as a drunk person has).

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.

So should labs that hold frozen embryos be prosecuted for imprisoning hundreds of people?

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.

Can you provide proof that abortions are carried out right up to birth. I accept that it's legal under some circumstances, but does it happen as you claim?

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.

Abortion on request is proposed for up to 12 weeks. How many types can be detected in the womb before the 12 week window expires?

Cabaal · 02-02-2018 11:10AM

pitifulgod wrote: »

The exact same argument could have been used against the marriage referendum. I know highly religious people who simply don't agree with aspects of Catholicism, it's applicable to much of the state's Catholics I imagine.

One of the most religious people I know (catholic faith) has zero issue with contraception, but at the same time will claim much of the sexual abuse against the same church was made up.

People can and do certainly choose what they agree or disagree with, though I suppose the belief that much of the sexual abuse was made up is sort of following the Vatican as the claimed this for years

end of the road · 02-02-2018 04:29PM

smacl wrote: »

Very many women in this countries that have had abortions are also Christians. Do you consider them no longer to be Christians, and more importantly, does their church?

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

SusieBlue · 02-02-2018 04:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

Sounds like you are just using religious ideals to take advantage of your own opinion on the matter.

end of the road · 02-02-2018 05:49PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sounds like you are just using religious ideals to take advantage of your own opinion on the matter.

as you well know, it sounds like nothing of the sort, because i'm doing nothing of the sort. i was simply asked a question and i answered it. i'm very happy with my opinion on the matter.

Peregrinus · 03-02-2018 05:57AM

end of the road wrote: »

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

You weren't able to confirm it but you still presume it to be true?

Seriously, does the fact that you couldn't confirm it not give you any pause for thought? Surely, it must have occurred to you that one possible explanation for your inability to confirm it is that it isn't true?

end of the road · 03-02-2018 07:06AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You weren't able to confirm it but you still presume it to be true?

Seriously, does the fact that you couldn't confirm it not give you any pause for thought? Surely, it must have occurred to you that one possible explanation for your inability to confirm it is that it isn't true?

no

i'm not religious myself, but i do have a small bit of knowledge on christianity. one of the fundamental teachings of christianity is one shall not kill, and therefore on that basis i'm assuming that the church is fully behind that viewpoint

J C · 03-02-2018 01:15PM

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.

We are all 'forced' to not kill others ... for most of us we consider it normal behaviour to not kill ... so we are actually being 'forced' to do something that we wouldn't to do, in the first place.

Why are women so 'special' that they should be allowed to exempt themselves from the societal norm of not killing others?

J C · 03-02-2018 01:25PM

david75 wrote: »

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.

We are all 'forced' to behave ethically in our dealings with others ... and especially when it comes to the lives of others.
The alternative is the 'law of the jungle' where the relatively strong kill the weak and vulnerable, with impunity ... just because they can!!

Women theselves are beneficiaries of the legal protection of the relativley weak from the strong ... for example. where a man hits a woman, the law (correctly) assumes the man to be in the wrong for such bahaviour, because of the relative strength of both parties ...

... and then when a woman is the stronger party ... we find that some women demand that they be allowed to kill the unborn weaker party !!!

... its a "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is my own" scenario ... and it is deeply hypocritical.

Cabaal · 03-02-2018 01:26PM

J C wrote: »

We are all 'forced' to not kill others ... for most of us we consider it normal behaviour to not kill ... so we are actually being 'forced' to do something that we wouldn't to do, in the first place.

Nobody is being forced to have an abortion, so to say forced is pretty disingenuous

Why are women so 'special' that they should be allowed to exempt themselves from the societal norm of not killing others?

Regardless of if you like it, we have a society norm where a majority want change of some level to the current situation, a society norm is abortion in this country...people like yourself just want to ignore it though.

If you don't agree with it then don't have an abortion, thats your personal choice to do that and that is perfectly fine. Same as you don't have to agree with marriage equality but nobody is ever going to force you to marry a person of the same sex as you, but why are people so obsessed and against something that has zero effect on them?

Abortion is a society norm in the UK and USA too, why are pro life groups so insistent in going against society by trying to change what is see as fine by so many?

J C · 03-02-2018 01:28PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

You should love them ... but that doesn't stop you defending your child with whatever means are available to you, including the police, if they threaten to kill your child.

J C · 03-02-2018 01:34PM

Cabaal wrote: »

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.

A Christian can do anything ... but to be consistent with their claim to be Christian ... they cannot personally assent to the killing of innocent unborn children by voting for the repeal of the 8th and the immediate introduction of abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
... and it would be a grave sin to do so ... on a moral par with actually performing on demand abortions, themselves.
You cannot vote for something that will directly result in the killing of unborn children ... and then claim that you don''t have their blood on your hands.

Cabaal · 03-02-2018 01:59PM

J C wrote: »

killing of innocent unborn children by voting

You keep using the term killing,

So if a women uses abortion pills in Ireland do you think she should be charged with murder the same as if she killed a 10 year old child? Perhaps a good old 25 year sentence in jail?

Or are you going to do the pro life special and do some mental gymnastics about how a fetus is equal to a child except if the mother has an abortion so she wouldn't be charged with murder
:rolleyes:

Cabaal · 03-02-2018 02:00PM

J C wrote: »

You cannot vote for something that will directly result in the killing of unborn children ... and then claim that you don''t have their blood on your hands.

Christians vote to murder and kill people all the time, they very much can and do vote for it.

Delirium · 03-02-2018 02:02PM

J C wrote: »

We are all 'forced' to not kill others ... for most of us we consider it normal behaviour to not kill ... so we are actually being 'forced' to do something that we wouldn't to do, in the first place.

Why are women so 'special' that they should be allowed to exempt themselves from the societal norm of not killing others?

There is no collective consensus that a foetus from conception is a person, as evident by this thread.

Also, unless you're talking about abortion pills, women aren't exempt as it's doctors/medical professionals that perform the abortion.

Should women be impregnated with every frozen embryo in storage? If not, why? Why are those embryos exempt from the right to life you espouse?

Cabaal · 03-02-2018 02:04PM

Delirium wrote: »

Should women be impregnated with every frozen embryo in storage? If not, why? Why are those embryos exempt from the right to life you espouse?

I'll answer that,
Taking a leaf out of the no side back in 2015
Because different "unborn children" can be treated differently :pac:

Timberrrrrrrr · 03-02-2018 02:49PM

J C wrote: »

You should love them ... but that doesn't stop you defending your child with whatever means are available to you, including the police, if they threaten to kill your child.

I didnt say threaten i said if someone KILLS my child.

smacl · 03-02-2018 04:25PM

end of the road wrote: »

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could correct me, but I don't think Christians cease to be Christian in the eyes of church because they knowingly break a commandment at any given point in their life. If that was the case there would be precious few Christians left. They may no longer be in a state of grace but so far as I'm aware sins can be atoned for. That said, I'm an atheist so probably the wrong person to comment.

end of the road · 03-02-2018 04:49PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Nobody is being forced to have an abortion, so to say forced is pretty disingenuous

Regardless of if you like it, we have a society norm where a majority want change of some level to the current situation, a society norm is abortion in this country...people like yourself just want to ignore it though.

If you don't agree with it then don't have an abortion, thats your personal choice to do that and that is perfectly fine. Same as you don't have to agree with marriage equality but nobody is ever going to force you to marry a person of the same sex as you, but why are people so obsessed and against something that has zero effect on them?

Abortion is a society norm in the UK and USA too, why are pro life groups so insistent in going against society by trying to change what is see as fine by so many?

abortion is not a society norm in this country. the fact people want it doesn't entitle them to it. there is no right to an abortion outside medical circumstances.
lots of things will have 0 effect on people over our lives, yet we have laws to stop certain actions from being taken within our society. for example, a new born child being killed in donegal has 0 effect on me personally, but damn sure i will be against it and will want the person responsible punished accordingly. so while abortion may not effect me, i have a right to be against it and a right to try and stop it from being allowed within my country outside necessary circumstances.
people will often go against society by trying to change what is seen as fine by so many, because sometimes what is seen as fine by so many actually isn't. at one stage, women weren't allowed to vote, that was seen as fine by society. gays were seen as the devil, that was seen as fine by society. so just because society may see abortion as fine, it doesn't mean they are right, and pro-life groups therefore have a right to try and change that.

Delirium · 03-02-2018 05:02PM

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is not a society norm in this country.

The thousands of Irish women who have had an abortion would suggest that you're incorrect in that statement.

the fact people want it doesn't entitle them to it. there is no right to an abortion outside medical circumstances.

Today you're correct but the referendum may change things so that women don't need their health/life to be in peril before being allowed access to an abortion.

lots of things will have 0 effect on people over our lives, yet we have laws to stop certain actions from being taken within our society. for example, a new born child being killed in donegal has 0 effect on me personally, but damn sure i will be against it and will want the person responsible punished accordingly. so while abortion may not effect me, i have a right to be against it and a right to try and stop it from being allowed within my country outside necessary circumstances.

Taking an abortion pill is not the same thing as murdering an infant. Equally, people don't share your narrow definition of 'necessary' when it comes to abortion.

people will often go against society by trying to change what is seen as fine by so many, because sometimes what is seen as fine by so many actually isn't. at one stage, women weren't allowed to vote, that was seen as fine by society. gays were seen as the devil, that was seen as fine by society. so just because society may see abortion as fine, it doesn't mean they are right, and pro-life groups therefore have a right to try and change that.

And pro-choice people also have the right to try change the law so that women have a choice about having a child instead of legally requiring them to become mothers if they should become pregnant.

david75 · 03-02-2018 05:09PM

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is not a society norm in this country. the fact people want it doesn't entitle them to it. there is no right to an abortion outside medical circumstances.
lots of things will have 0 effect on people over our lives, yet we have laws to stop certain actions from being taken within our society. for example, a new born child being killed in donegal has 0 effect on me personally, but damn sure i will be against it and will want the person responsible punished accordingly. so while abortion may not effect me, i have a right to be against it and a right to try and stop it from being allowed within my country outside necessary circumstances.
people will often go against society by trying to change what is seen as fine by so many, because sometimes what is seen as fine by so many actually isn't. at one stage, women weren't allowed to vote, that was seen as fine by society. gays were seen as the devil, that was seen as fine by society. so just because society may see abortion as fine, it doesn't mean they are right, and pro-life groups therefore have a right to try and change that.

This is where you’re going to lose the vast majority of people. Any hardline group imposing or attempting to impose its will and personal morals on society will ultimately fail. Especially in Ireland from the religious perspective where almost our entire country has abandoned the church after years of scandals and hypocrisies cover ups and protecting rapists from prosecution.

It’s baffling these groups haven’t seen how much they’re sabotaging their own campaign with their current tactics. You can’t brow beat people and impose your morals on anyone. It isn’t that Ireland anymore. These pro life groups really haven’t seemed to grasp that. And the harder the do it the more people will react against it.

end of the road · 03-02-2018 08:25PM

david75 wrote: »

This is where you’re going to lose the vast majority of people. Any hardline group imposing or attempting to impose its will and personal morals on society will ultimately fail. Especially in Ireland from the religious perspective where almost our entire country has abandoned the church after years of scandals and hypocrisies cover ups and protecting rapists from prosecution.

It’s baffling these groups haven’t seen how much they’re sabotaging their own campaign with their current tactics. You can’t brow beat people and impose your morals on anyone. It isn’t that Ireland anymore. These pro life groups really haven’t seemed to grasp that. And the harder the do it the more people will react against it.

the problem is that everything you state is based on wishful thinking. society imposes morals upon people all the time via laws. many many people are pro-life and are not religious. people don't suddenly react against other people's views, they either agree with them or they don't. people aren't going to vote the other way because of pro-life or religious groups or whatever, they will vote the way they vote because they agree with the proposals or they disagree with the proposals.

david75 · 03-02-2018 08:35PM

end of the road wrote: »

the problem is that everything you state is based on wishful thiinking. society imposes morals upon people all the time via laws. many many people are pro-life and are not religious. people don't suddenly react against other people's views, they either agree with them or they don't. people aren't going to vote the other way because of pro-life or religious groups or whatever, they will vote the way they vote because they agree with the proposals or they disagree with the proposals.

Oh come on. All these self appointed pro life groups currently active in this campaign are completely invested in and coming from a religious perspective. Look up Iona institute alone. It’s All about religion and a attempts to force a conservative and utterly redundant morality on a society that has moved away from that.
These methods and thinking no longer apply and that’s why it will fail.
We’re a society now, no longer beholden to an all but extinct religion forcing its will in us or how we think or what we do with our bodies or who we marry.

Do you not get that?

J C · 03-02-2018 08:59PM

Delirium wrote: »

So a pregnant woman is equivalent to a drunk person? And having abortion is drink driving? Interesting to see that you consider a pregnant woman to have impaired judgement (as a drunk person has).

That wasn't what I meant ... I was using drink driving as an example of where society sanctions behaviour that can lead to the injury and death of others.
Pregant women don't have impaired judgement ... and that makes any decision by them to kill their unborn children all the more wrong.

Delirium wrote: »

So should labs that hold frozen embryos be prosecuted for imprisoning hundreds of people?

There are major ethical issues about how human embryos are created, stored and utlised ... issues that haven't actually been addressed in Ireland yet. In this case, there is no woman involved ... and there is a Human life there.

Delirium wrote: »

Can you provide proof that abortions are carried out right up to birth. I accept that it's legal under some circumstances, but does it happen as you claim?

If its legal it will be done ... otherwise why have the law there, in the first place.

Delirium wrote: »

Abortion on request is proposed for up to 12 weeks. How many types can be detected in the womb before the 12 week window expires?

They can't ... and therein lies a further demand ... and a precedent in English abortion law allowing abortion with no time restriction where the unborn baby has disability.

J C · 03-02-2018 09:00PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Christians vote to murder and kill people all the time, they very much can and do vote for it.

Examples please of where Christians vote to kill innocent Human life.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments