Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Delirium wrote:

And again, not Christian. I don't share your religious beliefs.

You don't have to. But anyone who really thinks about abortion knows that it is wrong.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

You don't have to. But anyone who really thinks about abortion knows that it is wrong.

I've really thought about it and I don't think its wrong at all.

WhiteRoses wrote:

I've really thought about it and I don't think its wrong at all.

Fair dues to you. That's your decision. But I have to point out to you that God does not agree with you.

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, a non believer must still face the judgment seat of God. What's his position if he or she adds favouring abortion to their unbelief?

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'm sorry but it does. He has a special place allocated for you.

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Best of luck to you.

recedite

Nick Park wrote: »

Here is the position of many of the smaller Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, and many independent churches, as explained in Evangelical Alliance Ireland's submission to the Citizens' Assembly. https://www.evangelical.ie/files/EAI_Citizens_Assembly_Submission.pdf

A well thought out submission. Unfortunately the "citizens assembly" seems to have ignored it. It will be interesting to see how the actual citizens behave in the voting booth. I have my doubts about whether the CA was a reasonable representative of the general public at all (as opposed to a bunch of mainly left wing activists with too much time on their hands)

Delirium wrote: »

But by refusing abortion on request, you're putting the protection of the unborn above that of the womans health. She's not allowed to make the best medical decision for her situation. If she's unwilling to risk her health/life and continue with the pregnancy, that choice should be respected.

No, its putting the life of the unborn above the health and convenience of the woman. And that is the whole crux of the matter. Some agree with that, some don't.

The evangelical Christians in the above document predicted a "false narrative of a battle between young liberal progressives and an older generation of backward conservative religionists" which is exactly the narrative that the CA perpetuated, and has now been adopted by the likes of trendy younger politicians like Harris and Varadkar. If this narrative was true, it would be political suicide for them to oppose it.
But is it? That is the question.

recedite wrote: »

No, its putting the life of the unborn above the health and convenience of the woman. And that is the whole crux of the matter. Some agree with that, some don't.

Abortion carries less risk of fatality to pregnancy for the woman, so we're talking about life for both unborn and woman. The requires the woman to take the risks that pregnancy carry for her, irrespective of what she consents to.

This post has been deleted.

recedite

Delirium wrote: »

Abortion carries less risk of fatality to pregnancy for the woman, so we're talking about life for both unborn and woman.

That's not saying much. Even getting out of bed in the morning entails more risk to life, than staying in bed, for both men and women.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just from the general tenor of the proceedings.

I can't really comment on the selection process, except to say it was a private company making the selections (which is not a great situation, for a start) and IMO anyone who was self-employed or otherwise not in a position to give up so much time, and anyone who lived far away from the venue, and anyone who was not particularly interested in the issue, would all probably have to preclude themselves from the process.

If you were going to do something like this properly, you'd have to pick a random group of citizens, give them a salary and an office in Dublin for a year or two, and have the same group deliberate on various different issues. In other words, they would basically be TD's or Senators, but randomly selected instead of being voted in.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Abortion, particularly if it's early in the pregnancy, has less health risks for the woman compared to pregnancy.

Source

So by not allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion her life is placed in more danger by a factor over 10 based on quoted stats.

If you're concerned about a pregnant womans health, it's seem illogical to oppose repealing the eighth.

Direct deaths from induced abortion are rare (but not unknown). However, when total mortality rates for women who have had births, miscariages and abortions are compiled ... abortion is found to increase the total risk of death by about four fold in the first year after pregnancies that end in abortion, in comparison with birth.

Quote:-
"abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth."

Quote:-
"the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth."
http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

These are the negative effects of abortion on women ... and of course the mortality rate for their unborn children is practically 100%.

NuMarvel

recedite wrote: »

A well thought out submission. Unfortunately the "citizens assembly" seems to have ignored it. It will be interesting to see how the actual citizens behave in the voting booth. I have my doubts about whether the CA was a reasonable representative of the general public at all (as opposed to a bunch of mainly left wing activists with too much time on their hands).

The citizens in the CA were actual citizens. It was one of the requirements of being eligible to participate. As for being representative of public opinion, this is what I said in another thread:

NuMarvel wrote: »

Public opinion and the CA seem in line with each other when it comes to changing the constitution and the 12 week limit.

In the CA, 13% were opposed to any constitutional change, and polls show that 15% of the public share the same opinion. And for the 12 week limit, 64% of CA attendees supported this, and polls since then put public support at 65%. I haven't looked at all the Committee votes, but I know that only 15% of the members favoured retention of the 8th, so there's consistency across the board on that aspect.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

And again, not Christian. I don't share your religious beliefs.

Doesn't matter whether you are a Christian ... do you not you not share the basic Human ethic that nobody should kill except in extremis ?

... or do you believe that women are somehow exempted from such common descency ?

J C wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether you are a Christian ... do you not you not share the basic Human ethic that nobody should kill except in extremis ?

... or do you believe that women are somehow exempted from such common descency ?

Why do you feel women should somehow be exempted from holding full bodily autonomy and human rights?

WhiteRoses wrote:

Why do you feel women should somehow be exempted from holding full bodily autonomy and human rights?

Because a woman or man does not own their own body, it is the property of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit dwells within you, and so does the Kingdom of God.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Why do you feel women should somehow be exempted from holding full bodily autonomy and human rights?

abortion on demand is nothing to do with bodily autonomy and human rights. there is no human right to an abortion just because.

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is nothing to do with bodily autonomy and human rights. there is no human right to an abortion just because.

Abortion is everything to do with bodily autonomy.
You already know this because I’ve seen many others explain why to you.
The whole point of the referendum is that not having a referendum violates human rights for women.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Abortion is everything to do with bodily autonomy.
You already know this because I’ve seen many others explain why to you.
The whole point of the referendum is that not having a referendum violates human rights for women.

body autonomy for who? there's two human lives with rights involved not one. This referendum is about trying to remove human rights from the constitution, not adding them.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Abortion is everything to do with bodily autonomy.
You already know this because I’ve seen many others explain why to you.

they have given their opinion as to why, which is different. they are wrong.
being prohibited from killing the unborn just because does not go against bodily autonomy, as there are 2 lives involved who have an equal right to life unless the mother's life is under threat.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The whole point of the referendum is that not having a referendum violates human rights for women.

not having a referendum does not violate human rights for anyone. there is no human right to a referendum, there is a constitutional requirement.

recedite wrote: »

That's not saying much. Even getting out of bed in the morning entails more risk to life, than staying in bed, for both men and women.

We're discussing risk to live/health in relation to pregnancy, mortality rates of pregnancy v abortion are germane to the topic.

J C wrote: »

Direct deaths from induced abortion are rare (but not unknown). However, when total mortality rates for women who have had births, miscariages and abortions are compiled ... abortion is found to increase the total risk of death by about four fold in the first year after pregnancies that end in abortion, in comparison with birth.

Quote:-
"abortion critics have long contended that the statistics relied upon for maternal mortality calculations have been distorted and that the broader claim that "abortion is many times safer than childbirth" completely ignores high rates of other physical and psychological complications associated with abortion. Now a recent, unimpeachable study of pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland has shown that the risk of dying within a year after an abortion is several times higher than the risk of dying after miscarriage or childbirth."
Quote:-
"the risk of death from suicide within the year of an abortion was more than seven times higher than the risk of suicide within a year of childbirth."
http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html

These are the negative effects of abortion on women ... and of course the mortality rate for their unborn children is practically 100%.

Your study doesn't do much for your argument.

You do realise there are studies done that don't support the article on the (what looks to be a pro-life) site you linked to?

For example, abortion leading to suicide:

The hypothesis that women who undergo an abortion have worse mental health outcomes than those that don’t is at heart a scientific claim and can be tested as such. One recent study in Denmark charted the psychological health of 365,550 women, including 84,620 who’d had abortions. They found neither an increase in psychological damage, nor any elevated risk of suicide.

Link

And just because a woman died within a year of pregnancy due to an accident or being murdered, doesn't mean the pregnancy is the cause (likewise for abortion).

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is nothing to do with bodily autonomy and human rights. there is no human right to an abortion just because.

Yes it is. Bodily autonomy is the ability of a person to control what happens with their body, including when it comes to medical decisions.

Unless you're suggesting the unborn doesn't reside within the womans body, then your suggestion that abortion has nothing to with bodily autonomy is incorrect.

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

body autonomy for who? there's two human lives with rights involved not one. This referendum is about trying to remove human rights from the constitution, not adding them.

Leaving the 8th in our constitution breaches human rights. We know that from the Amanda Mellet and Siobhan Whelan cases. And repeal and legislating is the only way we can be sure we don't continue to breach them in the future.

On the other hand, repealing and legislating as per the Committee's recommendations doesn't breach human rights. We know that no country in the world has been found to breach human rights by allowing access to abortion.

But if you want to maintain that the unborn has human rights that must be recognised, I'd remind you that in our Constitution, ALL of the unborn's rights come second to the woman's freedoms to travel and to access information about abortion overseas. So if you're not objecting to those, I can't see how you can object to her bodily autonomy also being given the same status.

^Excellently summed up, Delerium.

Can I just say how frustrating it is that the same points continue to be made by the same posters, despite them being refuted many times, regarding the bodily autonomy issue,

The effect the 8th amendment has on a woman’s ability to have full bodily autonomy has been done to death now. It can’t be denied that it impacts her rights and her ability to control what happens to her medically.

endacl

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

You are certainly NOT a Christian if you vote for abortion.

The question was ‘can a Christian....’, not ‘may a Christian....’!

Details, oweny. Details.

You still haven’t answered my question about **** in the confessional, by the way...