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

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

J C wrote:

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.

The people don't decide. God decides. If you vote the wrong way, you will have to answer for it. Even if you don't believe, you will still be held responsible. After all, you do know the difference between right and wrong.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

You can repeat the 22 weeks all you like ... but the Oireachtas Report said that the CA also said "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit." (Item 2.32)

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

Now, man-up and withdraw your unfounded allgations of lying against me.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Because God exists outside your unbelief.

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

The people don't decide. God decides. If you vote the wrong way, you will have to answer for it. Even if you don't believe, you will still be held responsible. After all, you do know the difference between right and wrong.

God won't decide ... the people of Ireland will decide on whether we will have unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks ... and likely well beyond, by how they vote on the repeal of the 8th..

There are millions of dead unborn children across the World ... and God has done nothing about it. He has given us free will ... to be good ... or evil.
Humans are sovereign on Earth ... and if we make wrong decisions we ourselves and/or other people can suffer.
That is why we must persuade people to not allow the killing of innocent unborn children for objectively valid reasons.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

You can repeat the 22 weeks all you like

Because that's what it AND the CA's report says. And no matter what you say, they won't say anything else.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

J C wrote:

God won't decide ... the people of Ireland will decide on whether we will have unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks ... and likely well beyond, by how they vote on the repealof the 8th..

We will see about that. Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side.

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Because God exists outside your unbelief.

Who are you addressing these random thoughts to?

I'm a Christian who has a personal reltionship with Jesus Christ ... so, I have no unbelief.
... and people who are unbelievers, are unlikley to be moved by your simply stating that God exists.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Because that's what it AND the CA's report says. And no matter what you say, they won't say anything else.

Did the Oireachtas Report say that the CA also said "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit."? (Item 2.32)

You can squrim and wriggle on this ... but I didn't lie.

... and you should man-up and apologise ... before you do further damage to you credibility.

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

We will see about that. Unfortunately, you are on the wrong side.

It is a fact that the people of Ireland will be voting to repeal/not repeal the 8th ... and not God.

I'm very much on the right side on this. I'm asking people to choose life ... and not death.

J C

pilly wrote: »

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

... and unborn children have a lesser right to life than dogs ... in your morally mixed up world?

J C

wrote:

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

Are you on the pill ... pilly???
Pun intended !!!:D

Couldn't resist asking, given you obvious need to 'share' in relation to your sex life !!!:D:eek::)

Bob_Marley

Shoobs86 wrote: »

I also think it's important to point out that having an abortion is not, by any means, a pleasant experience. It is not something that I would ever enter into lightly, and I imagine a lot of other women feel the same.

Good to see that understanding, far too many seem to have a very flippant understanding of what an abortion entails for both the mother and the unborn child.

Shoobs86 wrote: »

In Ireland there is a tradition of not telling anyone about your pregnancy until after 12 weeks - in case it doesn't "stick". No-one holds a funeral for women when the pregnancy doesn't last past twelve weeks. You don't get maternity leave. You don't get much sympathy either - it's considered something that happens and we get over it.

Actually very many women are extremely distraught by miscarriage and require long term support and understanding. Many don't really get over it too easily. I've seen this in several occasions in my close family and friends and the devastating long term effect it has on parents should not be underestimated. I've also seen and attended private services in hospitals, at the parents request, for Children lost less than 12 weeks old.

Shoobs86 wrote: »

I don't know anyone who wants to have a particular sex of child so badly that they are willing to go through the turmoil of an abortion to "fix" it. I don't know of any grown, adult person who thinks that if they abort this pregnancy because of the sex, that the next one will be the correct sex. I don't know of any grown, adult person who would abort a pregnancy because of a trivial cosmetic issue.

Yet sex selective abortions, particularly of female children, and abortion of disabled children, unfortunately happen all over the world, whether you know about them or not.

Shoobs86 wrote: »

I DO know women, several women, who were told that the pregnancy was over because there was no longer a heartbeat - but you still have to carry to term and deliver. I know the trauma that this causes.

Which contradicts your earlier claim that women should just get over it and on with it.

Shoobs86 wrote: »

If it is morally wrong to abort a pregnancy in your opinion, then you simply don't have one.

Can you explain the logic that people who don't agree with abortions should not have children ?

Or do you mean that people in general can't have unintended or accidental pregnancies ?

Shoobs86 wrote: »

You keep your status with God, you keep your place in Heaven and you pray like crazy for the people you feel have strayed from 100% perfect holiness (but don't we all have sin?). Isn't it also "morally" wrong to become pregnant outside of marriage? Well then, single mothers are being treated exceptionally unfairly.

You don't need any religious belief to respect human life at it's most vulnerable, or to understand that taking the life of an unborn child is wrong.

Shoobs86 wrote: »

I have no right to judge someone. No one has the right to Judge anyone - especially not Christians, who are SUPPOSED to follow God's instruction that HE is the only one who can judge anyone.

Yet ironically, you've just gone ahead anyway and judged others in that statement.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of judging an action rather than the person, or points made on a forum instead of the posters. It seems to be more about religion with some pro-abortion advocates than it is about actual abortion.

Shoobs86 wrote: »

If the "other options" for women - assuming that the pregnancy won't kill them, and that the pregnancy is going to last full term and result in a live infant - are adoption, then how come there are no babies available to adopt in Ireland? There are plenty of live children who were born into terrifying, disgusting, neglectful situations most likely because there was no option to end the pregnancy. I don't see any Christians campaigning to provide healthcare, safe spaces from abuse, helplines, therapy, food, shelter - anything - to those children that are already born and in this country.

Christian charities throughout Ireland, and Christians working in charities have been helping and continue to help children, so that isn't true. But it's completely illogical to think it kinder to unborn children to take their life instead of permitting them the basic human right to live.

Bob_Marley

recedite wrote: »

Both are just a group of random people expressing their opinions

How random were these completely unelected public representatives though ? -
- were all counties and demographics democratically represented ?

How on earth did a private marketing company get to decide who should represent the Irish people without any oversight ?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

The way to sort it all out is not to vote for any of them, and thus bring the whole lot tumbling down.

Peregrinus

Bob_Marley wrote: »

How random were these completely unelected public representatives though ? -

They weren't random. The selection process was designed to produce a group that would reflect the age, gender, location and social class of the electorate at large. Beyond that, though, they were random. There was no attempt made, for instance, to choose participants based on religion or lack thereof, party affiliation, etc.

Bob_Marley wrote: »

- were all counties and demographics democratically represented?

All counties were represented. Demographics by age, gender and social class were represented. Other demographics were represented only coincidentally. The representation was not "democratic".

Bob_Marley wrote: »

How on earth did a private marketing company get to decide who should represent the Irish people without any oversight ?

Who else has the expertise and experience in selecting representative samples of the population, if not polling companies? The particular polling company which got the gig was chosen through a public tender process. It's not true to say that they did the job "without any oversight"; they were overseen by Ms. Justice Laffoy.

smacl

J C wrote: »

It all troubles me deeply ... as it should any right thinking person ... and its just as wrong to selectively abort a boy on the basis of him being somewhat more likely to have genetic issues leading to disability.

The question is are you only selectively troubled by what is happening in the growing anti-life culture out there?

I'm not troubled at all, quite the reverse actually. That people are responsible enough to only have children when they want to have children is a great piece of social progress that has happened in recent decades. I think abortion should be minimised on the basis that it is traumatic for the woman involved and should only be necessary in exceptional cases. No one ever wants an abortion, but nor should a woman ever have to bear a child against her will for whatever reason she chooses.

The whole Christian idea of 'go forth and multiply' is finally being reined in as the dangerous anachronistic ideal that it is when applied to a modern context. You do realise we live in a world where in excess of 3 million children die of starvation each year and if existing population trends continue, it is probable we will face a larger global food crisis?

The decision to only have children that you want and can reasonably hope to look after properly is entirely virtuous in my opinion and should be applauded. Abortion is already tough enough for the women involved, stigmatising it and putting up barriers against it is in my opinion shameful.

Shoobs86

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I keep asking you how do you know? Would you know a Christian by looking at him?

You are not understanding my point. The charities that campaign for improved services for children born into neglect and abusive families are not as visible as the pro-life campaigners are about abortion. I don't see anyone parading the streets to promote equal wealth distribution, education for families who had children and can't look after them, school meals programs which will feed children who literally don't get fed at home, support housing for children from abusive situations, social workers for families experiencing domestic violence, powers for the Gardai to properly remove children from dangerous circumstances.

What I am saying is that none of these issues are being fought for as ferociously as the pro-life campaign. These children are already born, they are here, living people, and they are suffering. But people seem to be more concerned about whether or not I continue with a pregnancy that I don't want within 12 weeks of conception.

Shoobs86

J C wrote: »

You can repeat the 22 weeks all you like ... but the Oireachtas Report said that the CA also said "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit." (Item 2.32)

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

Now, man-up and withdraw your unfounded allgations of lying against me.

I am quoting from the link which you have just edited to suit your opinion.

The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful without gestational limit in
cases where the unborn child has a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth.

The Committee recommends that the law should not provide for the termination of pregnancy on the
ground that the unborn child has a significant foetal abnormality where such abnormality is not likely to
result in death before or shortly after birth.

!!!!!

uptherebels

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

The people don't decide. God decides. If you vote the wrong way, you will have to answer for it. Even if you don't believe, you will still be held responsible. After all, you do know the difference between right and wrong.

You mean the right and wrong of having women die or have to go through unnecessary surgeries because they are pregnant?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You can repeat the 22 weeks all you like ... but the Oireachtas Report said that the CA also said "in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit." (Item 2.32)

http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/committees/eighthamendmentoftheconstitution/Report-of-the-Joint-Committee-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-web-version.pdf

Now, man-up and withdraw your unfounded allgations of lying against me.

Item 2.32 states:

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.

Which means there is a 22 week limit. We now this because just above in the same list.

Item 2.25 states:

The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful without gestational limit in cases where the unborn child has a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth.

Why would they mention 22 weeks if there are to be the same rules as 2.25?

frag420

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-person-babies

Doctors in Newcastle have been granted permission to create Britain’s first “three-person babies” for two women who are at risk of passing on devastating and incurable genetic diseases to their children.

A questions for the Christian pro life side, would you be in support of a three parent child developed in a lab as per the article above if it meant a reduction in abortions as there would be a reduction in the risk of passing on devastating and incurable genetic diseases to children which is a reason that many cite for procuring an abortion?

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

How random were these completely unelected public representatives though ? -
- were all counties and demographics democratically represented ?

How on earth did a private marketing company get to decide who should represent the Irish people without any oversight ?

A very good question ... and as a result, the deliberations of such an un-elected, privately selected, 'Assembly', carries no democratic authority.

There is also the constitututional issue. The Senate and Dail are specified and defined in the Constitution ... and any other National Representative Assembly should also be established via a referendum and an amendment to the Constitution.

J C

Peregrinus wrote: »

They weren't random. The selection process was designed to produce a group that would reflect the age, gender, location and social class of the electorate at large. Beyond that, though, they were random. There was no attempt made, for instance, to choose participants based on religion or lack thereof, party affiliation, etc.

All counties were represented. Demographics by age, gender and social class were represented. Other demographics were represented only coincidentally. The representation was not "democratic".

Who else has the expertise and experience in selecting representative samples of the population, if not polling companies? The particular polling company which got the gig was chosen through a public tender process.

Stalin and the politbureau used have great expertise in selecting representative samples of the Russian population ... to fill the Supreme Soviet ... perhaps some of the 'old-timers' from that era should have been consulted for their advice on forming a 'Citizens Assembly' ... NOT!!!

No expertise is actually required. If we want a genuinely representative Citizens Assembly, we should draw them at random by lot from the electoral register.
It is called Sortition and was the earliest known form of democracy.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/sortition
It has a number of advantages, including the elimination of time-serving professional politicians and reducing the risk of corruption as people 'elected by lot' wouldn't generally have any political baggage or blind allegiancies. They would be more akin to a jury ... and would carry grest moral authority, as a result. It also treats everyone as not only capable of voting in an election ... but also capable of being elected themselves.
Its the ultimate form of respect for the ordinary 'person in the street'. Sortition is not only 'rule of the people' ... but 'rule by the (ordinary) people' as well.

Sortition is the ultimate form of democracy ... but wouldn't be favoured by the political classes for the obvious reason that it would eliminate them and give their power to ordinary people chosen by lot to do great things.

If a polling company were to decide who would win the Lotto, based on their selecting the winners, no matter how 'objective' their criteria or modus operandi ... there wouldn't be many players!!!
The only perfectly fair way to choose a Lottery winner or to fill a Sortition Assembly, is by lot.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A very good question ... and as a result, the deliberations of such an un-elected, privately selected, 'Assembly' no less, carry no democratic credibilty or legitimacy.

you do realise the Assembly just made recommendations?

Nothing they proposed is legally binding. It's up to the government to decide what to do with the recommendations. So far, it looks like some recommendations will be included in legalisation drafting and others are to be ignored.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Item 2.32 states:

Quote:
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.

Which means there is a 22 week limit. We now this because just above in the same list.

It also means that there is no gestational limit in cases of foetal abnormality, where the unborn child will go on living after birth i.e non-fatal foetal abnormality.

Delirium wrote: »

Item 2.25 states:

Quote:
The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful without gestational limit in cases where the unborn child has a foetal abnormality that is likely to result in death before or shortly after birth.

Why would they mention 22 weeks if there are to be the same rules as 2.25?

The reason seems to be that fatal foetal abnormality has no gestational limit proposed by the CA, while normal pregnancies have a 22 week limit proposed ... but this is extended to no gestational limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality as well.
Anyway, this is the clear view of the Oireachtas Committee on what the Citizens Assembly has recommended ... it is not my interpretaion of it.

So I haven't lied ... I have merely correctly quoted what the Oireachtas Committe has said about the Citizens Assembly recomendations.

... and I would ask that the unfounded allegation of lying against me be withdrawn.
Very basic civil behaviour actually.

... and in future, I would suggest that where somebody thinks that another poster has erred the error should be pointed out without resorting to the un-parliamentary ad hominem of accusing the poster of lying.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

you do realise the Assembly just made recommendations?

Nothing they proposed is legally binding. It's up to the government to decide what to do with the recommendations. So far, it looks like some recommendations will be included in legalisation drafting and others are to be ignored.

I do realise that, and I have never said otherwise ... but they're not just any old recommendations from any old source. The CA was set up by the Government to make recommendations for implementation by government.
The government can strategically water down the recommendations of the CA ... like they have done currently on abortion ... in order to get the 8th repealed 'without frightening the horses' ... and having the people reject the whole thing.

... but there will be nothing to stop the government revisiting the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and implementing all of the CA recommendations. In this regard the CA recommendations are practicallly identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to a harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed ... and the CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It also means that there is no gestational limit in cases of foetal abnormality, where the unborn child will go on living after birth i.e non-fatal foetal abnormality.

The reason seems to be that fatal foetal abnormality has no gestational limit proposed by the CA, while normal pregnancies have a 22 week limit proposed ... but this is extended to no gestational limit for non-fatal foetal abnormality as well.
Anyway, this is the clear view of the Oireachtas Committee on what the Citizens Assembly has recommended ... it is not my interpretaion of it.

So I haven't lied ... I have merely correctly quoted what the Oireachtas Committe has said about the Citizens Assembly recomendations.

... and I would ask that the unfounded allegation of lying against me be withdrawn.
Very basic civil behaviour actually.

... and in future, I would suggest that where somebody thinks that another poster has erred the error should be pointed out without resorting to the un-parliamentary ad hominem of accusing the poster of lying.

And the committee has rejected the recommendation of the 22-week limit for on request and the no limits on foetal abnormalities where the unborn will go on living after birth.

What is the relevance of these rejected recommendations with regard to the proposed 12 week limit on request?

david75

The pro life folks cannibalising their own now. Body of Christ, indeed.

J C

frag420 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-person-babies

Doctors in Newcastle have been granted permission to create Britain’s first “three-person babies” for two women who are at risk of passing on devastating and incurable genetic diseases to their children.

A questions for the Christian pro life side, would you be in support of a three parent child developed in a lab as per the article above if it meant a reduction in abortions as there would be a reduction in the risk of passing on devastating and incurable genetic diseases to children which is a reason that many cite for procuring an abortion?

You are presenting a false 'hobsons choice' whereby you claim we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Generically engineering children is a moral (and physical) abomination. The production of genetically engineered food is banned by law in the EU ... but not genetially engineered Humans, apparently. It all fits into the mindset that gives rights to aniamals that are not granted to unborn Humans.

If somebody is at serious risk of producing a severely disabled child they have several morally legitimate options, including not having children at all or adopting children ... or even adopting somebody else's frozen embryo.
Creating humans with three parents is just the kind of 'frankenstein' meddling that makes people seriously distrust scientists ... and demand that their more outrageous proposals be curbed.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

And the committee has rejected the recommendation of the 22-week limit for on request and the no limits on foetal abnormalities where the unborn will go on living after birth.

What is the relevance of these rejected recommendations with regard to the proposed 12 week limit on request?

That's an entirely different argument.
The accusation of lying directed against me has now been proven to be without foundation ... and I have asked that it be withdrawn.

... and the relevance of the CA recommendations is that they haven't been rejected ... but merely strategically watered down ... in order to get the 8th repealed 'without frightening the horses' ... and having the people reject the whole thing.

Crucially, there will be nothing to stop the government revisiting the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and implementing all of the CA recommendations.
In this regard the CA recommendations are practicallly identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to a harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed ... and the CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this.

That is the relevance of the CA recommendations.