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

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

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 ?

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.

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::)

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

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

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: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Because God exists outside your unbelief.

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

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

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.

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: »

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.:)

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: »

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

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

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

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.

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.

recedite

Both are just a group of random people expressing their opinions

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

What are you talking about?

Oh sorry, I think I know what you mean.

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.

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.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

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

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".

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.