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

pilly

J C wrote:

Nobody is arguing this except yourself. ... but if somebody suggested that perfectly dogs should be routinely put down because their owners didn't want them anymore, the condemnations for such callous behaviour would (rightly) roll in!!

Of course because dogs are living breathing beings. Silly question.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

pilly wrote:

Of course because dogs are living breathing beings. Silly question.

Oh, for God's sake! Would you ever put your brain into action?

pilly

J C wrote:

Come on Nu Marvel ... stand up your allegations of lying. ... or withdraw them.

I think this is called baiting and is against the rules on boards.

pilly

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote:

Oh, for God's sake! Would you ever put your brain into action?

I think this is called personal abuse and is against the rules on boards.

Also I think taking the lords name in vain might be against the rules as a Christian.

J C

pilly wrote: »

Nope. I'm talking about Ireland here, others can talk about other countries all they like, doesn't make a jot of difference.

Since you're the one looking for links can you please show me one that backs up your emphatic statement that this test will be routinely available in Ireland?

Why will it not?

Were going to have unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks ... and probably well beyond 12 weeks, (in line with the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly for 22 weeks) once the dust settles, if the 8th is repealed.

Quote:-
"The (gender) tests are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration because they are not used for medical purposes, a spokeswoman said, but the agency is investigating the explosion of home genetic tests like these and genome-sequencing kits."

"The new study found that to be reliable, the sex-determination tests had to be performed after at least seven weeks of gestation. Most tests that were highly accurate were conducted on a mother’s blood, not urine. And certain rigorous laboratory procedures had to be followed. For the blood tests, women prick their fingers and send blood samples to labs. If the Y chromosome is detected, the fetus is male. Absence of a Y chromosome would probably mean the fetus is female, but could mean that fetal DNA was not found in that sample."

Of course, this could never happen in Ireland ... NOT!!

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

pilly wrote:

Also I think taking the lords name in vain might be against the rules as a Christian.

I am not taking the Lord's name in vain. I am invoking the Lord's name to enlighten you.

pilly

J C wrote:

Were going to have unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks ... and probably well beyond 12 weeks, (in line with the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly for 22 weeks) once the dust settles if the 8th is repealed.

Oh I'm glad you accept that we're going to have abortion.

Full stop

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

pilly wrote:

Oh I'm glad you accept that we're going to have abortion.

I doubt it very much. After all, the Lord is on our side.

J C

pilly wrote: »

I think this is called baiting and is against the rules on boards.

... I am asking somebody who made an unfounded allegation of lying against me to stand up their allegation ... and its very much within the rules of civil debate.
... I have also given them the option of withdrawing their unfounded ad hominem allegation.

By their silence they have shown that they were lying about me.

pilly

J C wrote:

... I am asking somebody who made an unfounded allegation of lying against me to stand up their allegation ... and its very much within the rules of civil debate. ... I have also given them the option of withdrawing their unfounded ad hominem allegation.

I'll have to look it up tomorrow, I'm off to have rampant unprotected sex all night.

recedite

pilly wrote: »

Since you're the one looking for links can you please show me one that backs up your emphatic statement that this test will be routinely available in Ireland?

You want a link to the future? Buy a DeLorean :pac:
BTW I said if the 8th was repealed these tests would become available here, so there are still a few hurdles to cross.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Were going to have unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks ... and probably well beyond 12 weeks, (in line with the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly for 22 weeks) once the dust settles if the 8th is repealed.

pilly
Oh I'm glad you accept that we're going to have abortion.

You misssed the word 'if' in my post.

... and its a very big (and getting bigger) IF !!!

J C

recedite wrote: »

You want a link to the future? Buy a DeLorean :pac:
BTW I said if the 8th was repealed these tests would become available here, so there are still a few hurdles to cross.

You don't need a DeLorean ...according to the New York Times, these are available as home tests, like pregnancy tests ... as well as being routinely used by Europen doctors ... so, the future is apparently right here right now.

The 8th never banned genetic testing ... and its used routinely nowadays in Ireland.

J C

pilly wrote: »

I'll have to look it up tomorrow, I'm off to have rampant unprotected sex all night.

Good for you ... enjoy !!!!:)

Sounds like you might be compensating for something ... hope it doesn't end prematurely for you!!!:eek:

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

where did I lie about the Citizens Assembly recommendations?.

When you continued to maintain that "the Citizens Assembly recomended no gestational time limit for situation where "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth" after I had pointed out to you that the Assembly's recommendation did include a gestational limit.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

By their silence they have shown that they were lying about me.

Not silent. Just not at your beck and call. Also not lying, but don't worry, I'm not going to make a big melodrama of your "scurrilous accusations".

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Again I ask, what right has a citizens assembly to decide what is right or wrong?

recedite

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Again I ask, what right has a citizens assembly to decide what is right or wrong?

As much right as a poll on a boards.ie thread.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

When you continued to maintain that "the Citizens Assembly recomended no gestational time limit for situation where "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth" after I had pointed out to you that the Assembly's recommendation did include a gestational limit.

Please note I was talking about the Citizens Assembly recommendations (and not the Oireachtas Committee's recommendations).
Is this quote from the Oirechtas Committe Report correct:-
"2.32 The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit."

... and if it is, I'm correct in my contention that "the Citizens Assembly recomended no gestational time limit for situation where "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth."

... and I wasn't therefore lying.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

What are you talking about?

Oh sorry, I think I know what you mean.

recedite

Both are just a group of random people expressing their opinions

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not silent. Just not at your beck and call. Also not lying, but don't worry, I'm not going to make a big melodrama of your "scurrilous accusations".

My allegations stand up ... yours don't.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

recedite wrote:

Both are just a group of random people expressing their opinions

Exactly. They have no right to tell us what's right or wrong.

end of the road

pilly wrote: »

It's good to see we're back to the but but but arguments. I haven't heard of anyone marrying their dog yet, has anyone else?

this is irrelevant waffle. nothing to do with the debate and it never even came up in the ssm referendum which it's obvious you are refering to. there is a massive difference between both referendums. they are not comparible.

pilly wrote: »

Of course because dogs are living breathing beings. Silly question.

the unborn are also living beings once they begin to develop.

pilly wrote: »

Oh I'm glad you accept that we're going to have abortion.

Full stop

not without a fight thankfully.

pilly wrote: »

I'll have to look it up tomorrow, I'm off to have rampant unprotected sex all night.

good for you, enjoy.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Rampant, unprotected sex all night? What sort of behaviour is that? Have you any respect for your partner?

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Again I ask, what right has a citizens assembly to decide what is right or wrong?

The Citizens Assembly (CA) cannot decide that something which is morally wrong ... is right ... but I wouldn't ignore their recomendations ... just because of this.
They were put together in the first place, to make recommendations that would be acted upon.

So ... even if the current proposals are a watered-down version of what the CA recommended ... it is highly likely that their recommendations will be acted upon, in their entirety, when the dust settles, if the 8th is repealed.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

J C wrote:

So ... even if the current proposals are a watered-down version of what the CA recommended ... it is highly likely that their recommendations will be acted upon, in their entirety, when the dust settles, if the 8th is repealed.

Of course it is. Because it was a set up from the start. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It has no relevance to morality.

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Rampant, unprotected sex all night? What sort of behaviour is that? Have you any respect for your partner?

She must be in a monogamous relationship and trying to get pregnant.:)

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

"2.32 The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation...

Up to 22 weeks gestation.

Up to 22 weeks gestation.

Up. To. 22. Weeks. Gestation.

And when we look at the outcome of the CA's Ballot on the matter (Reason 11), which term limit has the most support? 22 weeks.

You kept saying it was without limit, even after it was shown to you that it had. Ergo, lying.

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Of course it is. Because it was a set up from the start. Anyway, it doesn't matter. It has no relevance to morality.

It has no relevance to morality ... but it their very radical proposals are very relevant to people who are deciding which way to vote on the 8th.