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

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

how did you vote in both referendums?

I was 5 when the divorce referendum occurred so I didn’t vote in that.
I voted in favour of same sex marriage and was very active in the campaign.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

How did you vote in the same sex marriage referendum? And if applicable, how did you vote in the divorce referendum?

What difference does it make how somebody voted on marriage and divorce referenda? ... when, unlike the current referendum, that is to be put before the people no lives were or will be lost as a result of either referenda.
I have said that it is within the competence of the state to determine the terms of state marriage and divorce ... so I support the state in the exercise of their powers to bring equality to bear on its services for all its citizens ... including marriage and divorce.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

How did you vote in the same sex marriage referendum? And if applicable, how did you vote in the divorce referendum?

how did you vote in both referendums?

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

The mask is slipping allright for the narcissists, who would prefer to abort their unborn child, than go through with their pregnancy ... just because they want to.
... that's what abortion on demand is, after all.

Of course, the vast majority of pregnant women do go through with their pregnancies, even in less than ideal circumstances ... and they should be applauded for doing so ... and given all practicable support by the state for doing so ... in line with the sentiments of the 8th.

How did you vote in the same sex marriage referendum? And if applicable, how did you vote in the divorce referendum?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Its the 'too posh to push' brigade going one step further ... and becoming 'too posh to even stay pregnant'.

pilly
Again the mask slips. Nothing Christian about this.

The mask is slipping allright for the narcissists, who would prefer to abort their unborn child, than go through with their pregnancy ... just because they want to.
... that's what abortion on demand is, after all.

Of course, the vast majority of pregnant women do go through with their pregnancies, even in less than ideal circumstances ... and they should be applauded for doing so ... and given all practicable support by the state for doing so ... in line with the sentiments of the 8th.

... and there certainly should be provision for abortion in hard cases.
However, exploiting hard cases to push through abortion on demand is quite hypocritical.

end of the road

pilly wrote: »

Again the mask slips. Nothing Christian about this.

well, there is nothing christian about killing the unborn outside medical circumstances, so it's not surprising that people are going to become passionate about such a massive issue where the human rights of the unborn are at stake. this will mean telling some cold hard truths even if uncomfortable, or will mean people giving opinions based on their experiences, and so on.

pilly

J C wrote:

Its the 'too posh to push' brigade going one step further ... and becoming 'too posh to even stay pregnant'.

Again the mask slips. Nothing Christian about this.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

You are joking. There are women currently required to travel abroad for medically necessary abortion, fatal foetal abnormalities being one such example, because we have a restrictive medical policy embedded in the constitution.

To pretend that Irish healthcare is providing the best that it can for pregnant women is silly. And that's before even touching abortion. There are standard procedures and scans that are not carried out in Ireland because if a bad result is found then the 8th amendment puts the woman and the medical staff in a legally difficult position.

I agree that Irish healthcare could do better ... but putting resources into killing healthy unborn children isn't a good start, at improving health care.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't see how that changes their right to life, or otherwise.

Besides, not everyone is capable of keeping a newborn baby alive. Have you ever tried it? Modern technology has made it easier with formula milk etc.. but a hundred years ago only the rich could do it successfully, by employing a "wet nurse".
Nowadays "we" (some of us anyway) can keep a premature baby alive too. That makes it "a choice" in some countries between putting a prematurely induced foetus into the ICU and keeping them alive, or tossing them into the dustbin.
Is it morally or ethically right for somebody to have that choice over another life?

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

... and because only the mother can bring an unborn child to term are you saying that she can use her uniquely powerful position to have the child killed?
I don't think that she morally can.

Its like somebody holding a life-buoy while watching somebody who is drowning with nobody else around able to do anything ... but they couldn't be bothered to throw in the lifebuoy or swim in to save them, even though they are a skilled lifesaver.
... such callousness, while in a unique position to help, would be frowned upon by every right-thinking person ... and you could easily find yourself falling foul of common law for allowing them die even though you could save them.
... now imagine actively helping to kill them ... just because you could!!!

Quote:-
"A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril."

One could say that a woman who becomes pregnant has created a hazardous situation for her unborn child (certainly, if she is contemplating aborting it ) ... and she has a duty to 'save' her child by bringing it to term.

Quote:-
"Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters."

... and parents also logically have a duty towards their unborn children not to kill them ... on the basis that they conceived them, in the first place.

Its the 'too posh to push' brigade going one step further ... and becoming 'too posh to even stay pregnant'.

We are never alowed to be cavalier with other people's lives ... why should unborn children's lives be treated any differently?

J C

smacl wrote: »

Not so. For example, if a person is in a permanent vegetative state being kept alive by a life support system, it is common to take them off that life support system after a period of time. We consider someone brain dead to no longer be a person in that sense, and that they have already died. Very sad, but there it is.

... true ... but an unborn child isn't dead ... its very much alive ... and capable of being born and living a full life.
There is no comparison between a brain dead adult and a living unborn child.
One is dead with zero potential for life ... and the other is alive with full potential for life.

SortingYouOut

Of course you can.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

As it should be tbh. Every other country in the world manages without abortion policy embedded in the constitution, and they have abortion policies that vary from highly restrictive to the other side of the pendulum.

... and that is the problem ... the supreme courts in both the United States and Canada have struck down all laws preventing abortion ... and the reason the 8th was introduced, in the first place, was to prevent such an extreme situation also emerging in Ireland via judicial decision. This was a very real possibilty in 1983, given out shared Common Law setups and our common constitutional provisions ... and it still is a real posibility, if the 8th is repealed, with nothing put in its place (as is currently proposed).

... and now we are being asked to vote for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks as well as removing all constitutional protection for unborn children right up to birth ... a very big ask, I would say.
... we're actually being asked to vote for what was feared would result from judicial review ... unlimited abortion on demand ... up to 12 weeks initially ... and as far as the courts may decide afterwards ... and the precedent set in the USA and Canada is unlimited abortion and upon request .... and the striking down of all abortion control legislation.

The Canadian situation could very easily be the result, if the 8th is repealed here:-
Quote:-
"Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, and is governed by the Canada Health Act. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.

Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government legalized abortion, as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 law. The then-governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Canada

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Which very many people find deeply unreasonable, immoral and unjust, hence the push for change.

sure, but those same people lose the argument because they complain about the treatment of human beings in the past (rightly so) yet want to remove rights from other human beings. i put the blame here on the government though, for not putting forward truely credible proposals which would both protect the unborn, allow for abortion when necessary, and which would have given repeal a lot more support including from many on the pro-life side.

.......

This post has been deleted.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

At some point you have to state what attributes make a person a person.

Everyone will have their own opinion. And as stated it is not necessarily about "personhood". A new born baby is no more "a person" than they were the day before. They lack the kind of personality you would see in an adult, and are still fully dependent for their life support on others.
IMO there is no exact point, just a growing humanity, from the moment of conception.

Getting back to the point, the upcoming referendum gives us a simple choice between allocating human rights to the unborn in general, or removing those rights.
The govt. could have picked some point in the embryonic stage, and said "the 8th does not apply before this". But instead, its all or nothing.
All or nothing is actually easier for them than picking a point, because the exact point would be controversial. Its a "can" they hope to kick down the road by saying they will legislate for it afterwards.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

being a first trimester foetus does confer human rights in this country though

Which very many people find deeply unreasonable, immoral and unjust, hence the push for change.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Being a first trimester foetus doesn't confer personhood and attendant human rights either, nor does being a freshly fertilised ovum, nor a newly implanted embryo. At some point you have to state what attributes make a person a person. Religiously inclined people might consider a soul and the point of ensoulment, non-religious people might consider a mind, others on this thread are apparently very taken with fingers, toes and given the appearance of being sufficiently baby-like. Again, this is a matter of opinion.

The pregnant woman is the life support for a foetus, no more nor less than the life support system for person in a PVS. Remove either and the probability of survival is zero. One is exactly as comparable to killing as the other, though the life support system for the PVS person isn't a person in their own right going through significant hardship to keep going.

My example was simply to illustrate that we consider having a mind that functions at some level an essential part of being a person. No more, no less.

being a first trimester foetus does confer human rights in this country though, as it is going to develop into a person unless certain circumstances intervene to stop it from doing so. it's effectively a special case given that it is a human being which is developing into a person.
the mother or father is also the life support for the newborn, remove them and if not found that newborn will die. the life support decreases as time goes on.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

There are a number of misunderstandings in the above post, which I can point out individually...

1. Brain activity per se does not confer human rights. A person with 50% brain damage, or a person in a coma does not have their rights reduced to only 50% of what they were before.

Being a first trimester foetus doesn't confer personhood and attendant human rights either, nor does being a freshly fertilised ovum, nor a newly implanted embryo. At some point you have to state what attributes make a person a person. Religiously inclined people might consider a soul and the point of ensoulment, non-religious people might consider a mind, others on this thread are apparently very taken with fingers, toes and given the appearance of being sufficiently baby-like. Again, this is a matter of opinion.

2. In your example, if you killed that person in the permanent vegetative state, it would be a homicide. It would be totally illegal. Taking them off life support is a different thing. Its not killing them. Its just not forcing them to stay alive beyond their natural lifespan.
Abortion is killing.

The pregnant woman is the life support for a foetus, no more nor less than the life support system for person in a PVS. Remove either and the probability of survival is zero. One is exactly as comparable to killing as the other, though the life support system for the PVS person isn't a person in their own right going through significant hardship to keep going.

3. In your example, the person is in a permanent vegetative state. The "unborn" are growing rapidly all the time, with brain activity constantly increasing. Your example compares maybe to a case of FFA, where it has been already diagnosed that the foetus is doomed. But not to the vast majority of abortions.

My example was simply to illustrate that we consider having a mind that functions at some level an essential part of being a person. No more, no less.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

At some point, you have to decide what are the essential attributes that are unique and necessary for a person to exist. To my mind, as an atheist, this includes a minimal threshold level of measurable brain activity. I don't find early stage abortion morally reprehensible for a pregnant woman any more than I would an immediate relative of someone in a permanent vegetative state taking them off life support. Sad and unfortunate maybe, but not immoral.

There are a number of misunderstandings in the above post, which I can point out individually...

1. Brain activity per se does not confer human rights. A person with 50% brain damage, or a person in a coma does not have their rights reduced to only 50% of what they were before.

2. In your example, if you killed that person in the permanent vegetative state, it would be a homicide. It would be totally illegal. Taking them off life support is a different thing. Its not killing them. Its just not forcing them to stay alive beyond their natural lifespan.
Abortion is killing.

3. In your example, the person is in a permanent vegetative state. The "unborn" are growing rapidly all the time, with brain activity constantly increasing. Your example compares maybe to a case of FFA, where it has been already diagnosed that the foetus is doomed. But not to the vast majority of abortions.

Delirium

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

pilly wrote: »

I wish everyone would take the same attitude and just stop feeding it.

MOD NOTE

Please keep to the topic rather than introduce a tangent on moderation on another forum.

The same goes for suggesting someone is a troll. Report the posts you deem as trolling.

Thanks for your attention.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry but I refuse to engage in a line-by-line multiquote nitpicking battle with you. It does nothing but turns these threads into echo chambers.
I refute everything you have said and stand by my post.
Whether JC intends it or not, this is how his attitude is coming across.

You simply cannot tell me that my perception is wrong.

an echo chamber is a place where only one opinion is facilitated or allowed. i'm debating your view, hence no echo chamber. i quoted your post line by line because i felt that because it covered a multitude of different points that it would be easier to respond individually to those points. the reason you are refusing to engage is because you have nothing to say against those points, you can't debate against them.
JC's attitude is coming across the way you claim because that is how you want it to come across in my opinion. i base this on the many other times you have tried to make posters and their posts out to be saying something completely different to what they actually said, making posters out to be horrible people when they aren't. this is not fair, we haven't done it to you so why do it to us.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the fetus is equal to the mother. sentients is not valid in terms of this debate given that we don't decide human rights based on sentients. the adoption system can and should be changed to allow those children in the foster care system to go to a loving home.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Its already been explained multiple times across numerous threads that Ireland does not have domestic adoption. This is why the minute amount of Irish people who are looking to adopt do so internationally from India, Russia, Vietnam, etc.
Surrendering a child to a fate of a life in the foster care system is simply not good enough.

It isn't in the best interests of the child for them to be brought into this world, and left at the mercy of the social care system. It isn't in the best interests of the child to be born to a woman forced into motherhood. It isn't in the best interests of the child to be born into a life of poverty, neglect, or to parents who cannot cope.

So I have a lot of compassion and sympathy. More so for the woman, because as we know, she is the one who is actually alive, is carrying the pregnancy and will be responsible for this baby when it is born. So my support is with her.
But at the same time, I do care about the unborn. I don't think anyone should be brought into this world unwanted and unloved.

so we change the adoption system. this would bring actual benefits compared to abortion on demand.

SusieBlue

Gerry T wrote: »

Funny how people see pro life in such a black and white scenario, and always painted as oppressing women. To paint all pro-life supporters this way is wrong. I see women are equals and should in all cases be treated equally. But I also see a fetus as a growing person. Where a woman's needs, mentally or physically would require an abortion I would be fine with that. But if its just a want then I do believe the need of the fetus does outweigh that of the mother. To suggest I see women as inferior is way off the mark, I value the life of the fetus...you don't. I think for you to degrade the life of the fetus to a mere clump of cells is, how should I put it, sick as you put it. Where's your compassion and sympathy for the fetus, if the child isn't wanted when born then he/she can be given up for adoption.
How come the pro abortion side use such emotive language...it comes across as if your argument is so wafer thin you have to lower yourself to insults.

We can agree to disagree, the tipping point for me is do you believe if the fetus has any rights to it's need, a womb for 7 to 9 months. Well I do, but they should be seen as less important to the mothers needs, so in certain circumstances, yes abortion is needed. I don't believe abortion should be a free for all.

Its already been explained multiple times across numerous threads that Ireland does not have domestic adoption. This is why the minute amount of Irish people who are looking to adopt do so internationally from India, Russia, Vietnam, etc.
Surrendering a child to a fate of a life in the foster care system is simply not good enough.

It isn't in the best interests of the child for them to be brought into this world, and left at the mercy of the social care system. It isn't in the best interests of the child to be born to a woman forced into motherhood. It isn't in the best interests of the child to be born into a life of poverty, neglect, or to parents who cannot cope.

So I have a lot of compassion and sympathy. More so for the woman, because as we know, she is the one who is actually alive, is carrying the pregnancy and will be responsible for this baby when it is born. So my support is with her.
But at the same time, I do care about the unborn. I don't think anyone should be brought into this world unwanted and unloved.

pilly

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wish everyone would take the same attitude and just stop feeding it.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Only if you consider the likes of a first trimester foetus an 'other' person. You might, I don't. Thus from my perspective, this makes the pro-life stance morally reprehensible as all you achieve is causing hardship to vulnerable pregnant women.

lots of laws in society may cause hardship to some. but the reality is that law acts for the greater good over all.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Imagine being so arrogant as to believe you know what's better for another adult than they do themselves. As if another adult isn't capable of making their own informed choices that will affect their own life.

What's that phrase, "saving them from themselves"???

except in this case their own informed choices will affect another's life, that of the unborn. we have plenty of laws that stop people making "informed" choices, because those choices go against the greater good of society.

Delirium wrote: »

All that means is that some harm is acceptable and other isn't, i.e. the legislation requires the woman to be put at risk before allowing for an abortion. This allows for a certain amount of harm to be inflicted on the woman before allowing for an abortion.

Also, if a woman having an abortion is bad for society then why isn't having the abortion abroad an issue? The woman still had the abortion. The result to society is still the same, i.e. the abortion occurred.

the woman having the abortion abroad is an issue, but realistically we can't viably stop her from traveling to use another european service.
unfortunately in society in general, every legislation to prevent harm won't remove that harm completely, but what it does do is to try as much as it can to prevent that harm, and where the harm is caused, hold the person or people responsible for causing the harm to account. we will never completely eradicate harm, but we can try to minimize it.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again this claim is inaccurate. you can keep making it all you like but it is still inaccurate and always will be.

.......

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

they aren't at all. they are truthful.

he was condemning abortion and didn't condemn the women. but even if he was condemning the women, then considering the same women would be condemned if they killed the same child once born, then his viewpoint of condemning the women for having an abortion outside medical reasons would be valid. i wouldn't go that far myself, but the view is valid.

actually, no he wasn't. he was clear that if it is for medical or other extreme reasons he believes an abortion should happen.

it makes me and many others sick to think people consider the unborn to be inferior or something that can be killed just because. but some do. the good news is that most of us don't think women are inferior to the unborn, we believe both to be equal except where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability.

people like JC are not trying to deny her any rights. this is something you have made up in your head but it's not real.

again this is made up. the pro-life side have been clear that where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, then an abortion must be facilitated and performed. but because she wants to have an abortion is not a valid reason.

people who are against abortion on demand. nothing wrong with being called out for that as we are prowd to be against abortion on demand.

actually, we don't know if those against abortion on demand are in a minority, because there are many other reasons why one may be in favour of repeal, yet could be against abortion on demand. the circles you are in don't really mean anything as by the sounds of it they are idealistic rather then being realistic.

Sorry but I refuse to engage in a line-by-line multiquote nitpicking battle with you. It does nothing but turns these threads into echo chambers.
I refute everything you have said and stand by my post.
Whether JC intends it or not, this is how his attitude is coming across.

You simply cannot tell me that my perception is wrong.

Gerry T

WhiteRoses wrote: »

They still exist. His posts have been disgraceful.

He wasn't condemning abortion, he was condemning the women who procure abortions.
He was doing this despite not knowing what circumstances a woman might find herself in to require an abortion in the first place.
It makes me sick to think people consider women to be inferior members of society at the expense of a mere weeks old fetus.
No compassion, no sympathy.
She is important and her feelings are valid, despite how much people like JC would try to deny her any rights.

Once again, people going on and on and on about the baby and saving it and protecting it.
Not a word about the welfare of the woman from the pro-life side. She is an irrelevant vessel.

Its about time people like this were called out for what they are. Thank God they are in a minority, because the circles I'm in certainly don't share that type of view.

Funny how people see pro life in such a black and white scenario, and always painted as oppressing women. To paint all pro-life supporters this way is wrong. I see women are equals and should in all cases be treated equally. But I also see a fetus as a growing person. Where a woman's needs, mentally or physically would require an abortion I would be fine with that. But if its just a want then I do believe the need of the fetus does outweigh that of the mother. To suggest I see women as inferior is way off the mark, I value the life of the fetus...you don't. I think for you to degrade the life of the fetus to a mere clump of cells is, how should I put it, sick as you put it. Where's your compassion and sympathy for the fetus, if the child isn't wanted when born then he/she can be given up for adoption.
How come the pro abortion side use such emotive language...it comes across as if your argument is so wafer thin you have to lower yourself to insults.

We can agree to disagree, the tipping point for me is do you believe if the fetus has any rights to it's need, a womb for 7 to 9 months. Well I do, but they should be seen as less important to the mothers needs, so in certain circumstances, yes abortion is needed. I don't believe abortion should be a free for all.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

They still exist. His posts have been disgraceful.

they aren't at all. they are truthful.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

He wasn't condemning abortion, he was condemning the women who procure abortions.

he was condemning abortion and didn't condemn the women. but even if he was condemning the women, then considering the same women would be condemned if they killed the same child once born, then his viewpoint of condemning the women for having an abortion outside medical reasons would be valid. i wouldn't go that far myself, but the view is valid.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

He was doing this despite not knowing what circumstances a woman might find herself in to require an abortion in the first place.

actually, no he wasn't. he was clear that if it is for medical or other extreme reasons he believes an abortion should happen.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It makes me sick to think people consider women to be inferior members of society at the expense of a mere weeks old fetus.
No compassion, no sympathy.

it makes me and many others sick to think people consider the unborn to be inferior or something that can be killed just because. but some do. the good news is that most of us don't think women are inferior to the unborn, we believe both to be equal except where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

She is important and her feelings are valid, despite how much people like JC would try to deny her any rights.

people like JC are not trying to deny her any rights. this is something you have made up in your head but it's not real.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Once again, people going on and on and on about the baby and saving it and protecting it.
Not a word about the welfare of the woman from the pro-life side. She is an irrelevant vessel.

again this is made up. the pro-life side have been clear that where the mother's life is under threat, or she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, then an abortion must be facilitated and performed. but because she wants to have an abortion is not a valid reason.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Its about time people like this were called out for what they are.

people who are against abortion on demand. nothing wrong with being called out for that as we are prowd to be against abortion on demand.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Thank God they are in a minority, because the circles I'm in certainly don't share that type of view.

actually, we don't know if those against abortion on demand are in a minority, because there are many other reasons why one may be in favour of repeal, yet could be against abortion on demand. the circles you are in don't really mean anything as by the sounds of it they are idealistic rather then being realistic.