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.
end of the road wrote: » but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Sounds like you are just using religious ideals to take advantage of your own opinion on the matter.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So if someone was to kill one of my children tomorrow you are saying i should "love" them?
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.
J C wrote: » killing of innocent unborn children by voting
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Delirium wrote: » So should labs that hold frozen embryos be prosecuted for imprisoning hundreds of people?
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?
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?
Cabaal wrote: » Christians vote to murder and kill people all the time, they very much can and do vote for it.
