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

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.

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

SortingYouOut

Of course you can.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

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.

I’m just trying to understand your world view a bit better, is all.
So I’ll take it that you voted in favour of same sex marriage? Your reply is a bit ambiguous, I just wanted to clarify.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

J C wrote:

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.

Unfortunately lives will be lost, but not in this life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

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.

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

No, your mask is well and truly slipping now by showing what you think of women.

If you genuinely believe that women are having abortions JUST BECAUSE then you have an extremely low opinion of women and there is nothing Christian at all about that.

NaFirinne

pilly wrote: »

No, your mask is well and truly slipping now by showing what you think of women.

If you genuinely believe that women are having abortions JUST BECAUSE then you have an extremely low opinion of women and there is nothing Christian at all about that.

I can't come up with a single reason for killing an innocent baby.

How hateful the hearts of people have become who can rationalize such a horrid practice.

And it is JUST BECAUSE they want too - it maybe various reasons why they want too but that is beside the point. In the vast majority of abortions there is no medical reason or rape issue for the decision. If they don't kill their unborn babies then they will be born and may grow up turn into the outstanding people that God had purposed them to to be.

No one should be deciding the right to life of another person....not women not men not anyone.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

There is no situation where you are allowed to kill the unborn. In the case of a mother's life, would she not sacrifice her life for the sake of her born child? Of course she would. It's the same in the case of the unborn child. After all, when she dies, she has to stand before the Son of Man, and give an account of her actions.

NuMarvel

NaFirinne wrote: »

I can't come up with a single reason for killing an innocent baby.

This adjective seems pointless unless you're saying you're okay with killing guilty babies?

NuMarvel

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

There is no situation where you are allowed to kill the unborn.

Our Constitution says otherwise, but for some reason, no one on the "pro life" side wants to change that.

NaFirinne

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really.....what is the correct term?

I mean you don't say to a woman who your hear is pregnant congratulations on your fetus.

You say congratulations on your baby.

You are fast to use medical terms when you want t ease your conscious about killing unborn babies.

People have done it for hundreds of years in the past - Dehumanize the people they want to kill.

Weren't even irish people called the white ape at one stage.

You can rename an unborn baby to whatever term you wish, but your for still for killing them.

Anyone voting for removing the 8th will have their deaths on there soul when the come before the son of man

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

NuMarvel wrote:

Our Constitution says otherwise, but for some reason, no one on the "pro life" side wants to change that.

The constitution can say what it likes. I'm telling you what God says.

Shoobs86

J C wrote: »

but this doesn't remove the moral responsibility from anybody, when they act on matters of life and death ... such as when they cast their vote in the upcoming abortion referendum.
Do we really want a society where the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb?

There are obvious substantive reasons why 'thou shall not kill' is a critical principle for society to live by ... other than the fact that it is the Sixth Commanment of God (although that in itself should be very important for any Christian).
The most obvious (and selfish reason) is that I could be the next victim, in a society that doesn't enforce and criminally sanction the principle of 'thou shall not kill'.
... and you or I might never have been born, if our societies didn't protect the right to life of unborn children, at the time.
... so why should we metaphorically 'lift the drawbrdge' behind us now? ... and leave future generations of children to 'run the gauntlet' of being aborted, in a society that legally allows unlimited abortion?

I think that this is the incorrect way to view the situation. As a Christian, yes, I uphold the moral and biblical law of thou shalt not kill. And therefore, I will not have an abortion by choice. However, I also currently run the risk of being killed by doctors during my pregnancy simply because there is no room in the law for them to terminate a pregnancy if I am at risk. Yes, the wording says it's ok if I am at risk - but we have seen evidence of doctors unwilling to do anything because they are afraid of being sued. I, personally, am already scared by this.

As a Christian I also have to be honest with myself and realise that I have never walked in another's shoes; I cannot, and have no right to, interfere with someone else's choice - isn't that why God gave us Free Will? To sin, to repent, to be forgiven.

I don't believe that voting "No" in this referendum will cease abortion in this country. I also don't believe your position that amending the 8th Amendment will mean that there is a murder free-for-all - be sensible in your arguements, this is NOT an approval for murder in general. It is approval for the decriminalisation of a medical procedure to end a pregnancy before the 12 week mark. This procedure happens every day in all countries - this referendum will not stop it.

I also have to point out, as the parent of a Down Syndrome child, that the testing for Down Syndrome cannot be done before 12 weeks, and therefore the risk of "abortion due to disability" is removed by this time limit.

When I weigh this all up morally, I cannot in good faith believe that I have the "high ground" above other people when I am not God - God has given people Free Will and it is not my place to judge under any circumstance. I can keep MY morals intact by not having an abortion, and by supporting proper Adoption services, but I cannot judge those who will have an abortion either way - no matter what the result of the referendum.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Good man yourself!

SusieBlue

Shoobs86 wrote: »

I think that this is the incorrect way to view the situation. As a Christian, yes, I uphold the moral and biblical law of thou shalt not kill. And therefore, I will not have an abortion by choice. However, I also currently run the risk of being killed by doctors during my pregnancy simply because there is no room in the law for them to terminate a pregnancy if I am at risk. Yes, the wording says it's ok if I am at risk - but we have seen evidence of doctors unwilling to do anything because they are afraid of being sued. I, personally, am already scared by this.

As a Christian I also have to be honest with myself and realise that I have never walked in another's shoes; I cannot, and have no right to, interfere with someone else's choice - isn't that why God gave us Free Will? To sin, to repent, to be forgiven.

I don't believe that voting "No" in this referendum will cease abortion in this country. I also don't believe your position that amending the 8th Amendment will mean that there is a murder free-for-all - be sensible in your arguements, this is NOT an approval for murder in general. It is approval for the decriminalisation of a medical procedure to end a pregnancy before the 12 week mark. This procedure happens every day in all countries - this referendum will not stop it.

I also have to point out, as the parent of a Down Syndrome child, that the testing for Down Syndrome cannot be done before 12 weeks, and therefore the risk of "abortion due to disability" is removed by this time limit.

When I weigh this all up morally, I cannot in good faith believe that I have the "high ground" above other people when I am not God - God has given people Free Will and it is not my place to judge under any circumstance. I can keep MY morals intact by not having an abortion, and by supporting proper Adoption services, but I cannot judge those who will have an abortion either way - no matter what the result of the referendum.

Possibly the most intelligent, reasonable opinion I've seen so far on this issue. Excellent post.

Shoobs86

NaFirinne wrote: »

Really.....what is the correct term?

I mean you don't say to a woman who your hear is pregnant congratulations on your fetus.

You say congratulations on your baby.

You are fast to use medical terms when you want t ease your conscious about killing unborn babies.

People have done it for hundreds of years in the past - Dehumanize the people they want to kill.

Weren't even irish people called the white ape at one stage.

You can rename an unborn baby to whatever term you wish, but your for still for killing them.

Anyone voting for removing the 8th will have their deaths on there soul when the come before the son of man

This is completely irrational. Where are you coming up with "white apes"? What has that got to do with anything in this thread?

This is why non-Christian people think that we are all nuts - you must be logical in your responses!