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

Bob_Marley

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

Again, there is not one human life and right involved, but two, the mother and her unborn child. You don't enhance human rights for anyone by actively trying to ignore, deny and remove the rights of a human life and ending their life when it is at it's most defenceless.

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Again, there is not one human life and right involved, but two, the mother and her unborn child. You don't enhance human rights for anyone by actively trying to ignore, deny and remove the rights of that human life and ending their life when it is most defenceless.

I'll say it again because you seem to have missed my point the first time: Nobody's human rights are ignored, denied, or removed by repeal of the 8th. Access to abortion is NOT a breach of human rights.

On the other hand, Ireland IS in breach of human rights because of our abortion laws, and we can't remedy that until we repeal the 8th. To use your turn of phrase, you don't enhance human rights for the unborn by actively ignoring and denying the rights of the woman.

BUT if you want to insist the unborn has human rights, then I remind you we already put the freedom to travel and to access information ABOVE all of the unborn's rights. And if you don't object to that, which no one does, then there's no basis for treating bodily autonomy in the same way.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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

How about the basic Human right to life of the unborn child?
... and so-called 'full bodily autonomy' is just an obvious immoral 'fig leaf' for an utterly selfish decision to kill an innocent unborn child ... when both the mother and child are perfectly healthy.

'Full bodily autonomy' ends at the point where the exercise of such autonomy interferes with the rights of others ... and especially the right to life of others.

... otherwise, every rapist would just say, in his defense ... ' I was just exercising my full bodily autonomy, judge' ... and be released to go forth to further exercise the said 'bodily autonomy', as he sees fit !!!

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll say it again because you seem to have missed my point the first time: Nobody's human rights are ignored, denied, or removed by repeal of the 8th. Access to abortion is NOT a breach of human rights.

On the other hand, Ireland IS in breach of human rights because of our abortion laws, and we can't remedy that until we repeal the 8th. To use your turn of phrase, you don't enhance human rights for the unborn by actively ignoring and denying the rights of the woman.

BUT if you want to insist the unborn has human rights, then I remind you we already put the freedom to travel and to access information ABOVE all of the unborn's rights. And if you don't object to that, which no one does, then there's no basis for treating bodily autonomy in the same way.

That is because of a totally one-sided view of Human rights ... which are deemed to reside 100% with the woman ... and 0% with her unborn child.
Common Human decency demands that such a clearly inequitable idea be totally rejected, by all right-thinking people.

Women correctly demand equality with men ... and then some of them turn around and demand to kill unborn children with impunity.

... its a one-sided 'what yours is mine and what's mine is my own' kind of equality that they are talking about.

... you couldn't make it up !!!

... they correctly demand equality for themselves ... and then refuse to grant any equality to defenseless, innocent unborn children!!

Bob_Marley

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll say it again because you seem to have missed my point the first time: Nobody's human rights are ignored, denied, or removed by repeal of the 8th. Access to abortion is NOT a breach of human rights.

On the other hand, Ireland IS in breach of human rights because of our abortion laws, and we can't remedy that until we repeal the 8th. To use your turn of phrase, you don't enhance human rights for the unborn by actively ignoring and denying the rights of the woman.

BUT if you want to insist the unborn has human rights, then I remind you we already put the freedom to travel and to access information ABOVE all of the unborn's rights. And if you don't object to that, which no one does, then there's no basis for treating bodily autonomy in the same way.

The right to human life for all unborn children is being removed from the constitution, no human rights are being added. You don't add human life rights by removing, ignoring and denying them at the point when human life is at its most vulnerable.

Bob_Marley

J C wrote: »

That is because of a totally one-sided view of Human rights ... which are deemed to reside 100% with the woman ... and 0% with her unborn child.
Common Human decency demands that such a clearly inequitable idea be totally rejected, by all right-thinking people.

Women correctly demand equality with men ... and then toxic femininsm turns around and demands to kill their unborn children with impunity.

... its a one-sided 'what yours is mine and what's mine is my own' kind of equality that they are talking about.

... you couldn't make it up !!!

... they correctly demand equality for themselves ... and refuse to grant equality to their defenseless, innocent unborn children!!

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

It kinda removes the gloss from all the high-sounding stuff that pro-abortion femininsm and their male feminist fellow travellers, engage in allright.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Good man, Bob_Marley, the Lord is with you.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Good man, Bob_Marley, the Lord is with you.

Bob_Marley

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Good man, Bob_Marley, the Lord is with you.

respecting and defending human life equally and at its most vulnerable and weakest has nothing to do with religion, atheism, belief or non belief.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

That is because of a totally one-sided view of Human rights ... which are deemed to reside 100% with the woman ... and 0% with her unborn child.
Common Human decency demands that such a clearly inequitable idea be totally rejected, by all right-thinking people.

Those are internationally recognised human rights and those views have been reached by experts in the field after hearing from both sides on the matter.

You can't invoke human rights and expect to be taken seriously when you reject actual human rights laws in favour of whatever version you've cooked up to suit your arguments.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The right to human life for all unborn children is being removed from the constitution, no human rights are being added. You don't add human life rights by removing, ignoring and denying them at the point when human life is at its most vulnerable.

There's little point replying to my post if you're not actually going to address what I've said. Repealing the 8th doesn't breach human rights; keeping it does. It is as simple as that.

When you've got a proper response to my points, let me know. Otherwise, I'm getting off this merry-go-round here, thanks.

Bob_Marley

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's little point replying to my post if you're not actually going to address what I've said. Repealing the 8th doesn't breach human rights; keeping it does. It is as simple as that.

When you've got a proper response to my points, let me know. Otherwise, I'm getting off this merry-go-round here, thanks.

The repeal is removing rights, not adding them. No avoiding that glaring elephant i'm afraid.

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

There is no proposal for "unlimited abortion" and people won't be able to get abortions on the grounds of gender or disability. How about we stick to the facts, okay?

Bob_Marley

NuMarvel wrote: »

There is no proposal for "unlimited abortion" and people won't be able to get abortions on the grounds of gender or disability. How about we stick to the facts, okay?

There's no limit abortion proposed for the first 12 weeks of life, no getting away from that fact either i'm afraid.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'll say it again because you seem to have missed my point the first time: Nobody's human rights are ignored, denied, or removed by repeal of the 8th. Access to abortion is NOT a breach of human rights.

On the other hand, Ireland IS in breach of human rights because of our abortion laws, and we can't remedy that until we repeal the 8th. To use your turn of phrase, you don't enhance human rights for the unborn by actively ignoring and denying the rights of the woman.

BUT if you want to insist the unborn has human rights, then I remind you we already put the freedom to travel and to access information ABOVE all of the unborn's rights. And if you don't object to that, which no one does, then there's no basis for treating bodily autonomy in the same way.

ireland can remedy the human rights breaches in relation to abortion (which relates to medically necessary abortions only) via the existing legislation that allows abortion in medically necessary circumstances. not providing abortion on demand is not a breach of human rights. the unborn must be protected and to do that, the only option because of the government's proposals is to vote no to repeal to protect their right to life, life being a human right.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

100% correct.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Those are internationally recognised human rights and those views have been reached by experts in the field after hearing from both sides on the matter.

You can't invoke human rights and expect to be taken seriously when you reject actual human rights laws in favour of whatever version you've cooked up to suit your arguments.

A one-sided Human Right giving 100% rights to women and 0% to their unborn child is a perversion of 'equality' ... and it doesn't matter how many so-called 'experts' have concocted it ... it's still a perversion of equality ... that should be rejected by all right thinking people.

NuMarvel wrote: »

There's little point replying to my post if you're not actually going to address what I've said. Repealing the 8th doesn't breach human rights; keeping it does. It is as simple as that.

In the world of the pro-abortionist, that may be the perception ... but in the real world that everyone else lives in, the stripping away of all constitutional protection for the unborn right up to birth, does breach the human right to life of the unborn ... and puts them at imminent risk of death by abortion.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

There's no limit abortion proposed for the first 12 weeks of life, no getting away from that fact either i'm afraid.

Gender and pretty much all disabilities cannot be detected at 12 weeks so your point is moot.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Gender and pretty much all disabilities cannot be detected at 12 weeks so your point is moot.

really ? so that would rule out the 'fetal abnormality' case as well them

unborn children are not moot.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

really ? so that would rule out the 'fetal abnormality' case as well them unborn children are not moot.

Your point was that people would abort due to gender or disability.
I pointed out that neither can be determined on or before 12 weeks.
You were the one who brought up FFA, not me. And I never said the unborn were moot, I said your point was. Which it is. Don’t put words in my mouth.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Gender and pretty much all disabilities cannot be detected at 12 weeks so your point is moot.

That could be resolved by extending the time for on-demand abortion to 24 weeks ... and for disability up to 9 months ... as is currently the case in England.

... there will be nothing to stop this barbarity from happening ... if the 8th is repealed.

pilly

Bob_Marley wrote:

Most telling of all under the proposed unlimited abortion, you'll now be able to terminate a child, whose heart starts beating at three weeks, merely because she is a female or disabled or is mixed race, or just doesn't suit. So much for female rights after all. How's that for a brave newspeak world.

Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The repeal is removing rights, not adding them. No avoiding that glaring elephant i'm afraid.

Incorrect. Repeal is removing a constitutional provision that doesn't work, and will allow legislation that grants women the right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy. After that point, she will have her rights to life and to be free of cruel and unusual treatment protected, as well as the right to her health up to whatever term limits the legislation sets out.

The legislation will similarly protect the unborn's rights, because doctors who carry out abortions outside the law will face sanctions. Most importantly, repeal does not infringe the unborn's human rights, because it has never been found that access to abortion breaches those rights.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

100% correct.

100% lies

J C

pilly wrote: »

Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.

Why is it lies ... where is the protection from gender-specific abortion, for example, where abortion is available on demand?

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

That could be resolved by extending the time for on-demand abortion to 24 weeks ... and for disability up to 9 months ... as is currently the case in England.

... there will be nothing to stop this barbarity ... if the 8th is repealed.

Scaremongering at its finest.
There is no such agenda to do that. It’s taken us what, 30 years? to even organize a referendum to repeal this stupid and barbaric amendment.
If you really believe this would happen then you are delusional.

pilly

Bob_Marley wrote:

really ? so that would rule out the 'fetal abnormality' case as well them unborn children are not moot.

You really need to educate yourself on this issue before you continue on making a fool of yourself son.

NuMarvel

Bob_Marley wrote: »

There's no limit abortion proposed for the first 12 weeks of life, no getting away from that fact either i'm afraid.

If there's a time limit, then it's defacto NOT unlimited.

BTW, the first 12 weeks of life are generally regarded as from birth, not conception. Unless you add 9 months to your age anytime you're asked.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Your point was that people would abort due to gender or disability.
I pointed out that neither can be determined on or before 12 weeks.
You were the one who brought up FFA, not me. And I never said the unborn were moot, I said your point was. Which it is. Don’t put words in my mouth.

so if as you claim you cannot detect nearly all disabilities at 12 weeks how are you going to reliably diagnose FFA ?

Bob_Marley

pilly wrote: »

Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.

Do tell us, what restrictions are going to be imposed on 'no restriction' abortion up to 12 weeks ?

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

so if as you claim you cannot detect nearly all disabilities at 12 weeks how are you going to reliably diagnose FFA ?

FFA are usually diagnosed at the anamoly scan which normally occurs around 20 weeks.

FFA cannot be detected at 12 weeks so anyone aborting on or before then would not be doing so because of FFA. I have no problem with this.