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

Delirium

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Are you're ok wit the removal of human life rights of unborn children, and ok with the termination of their life ?

No trying to hide it - yes or no.

Not hiding anything. Yes and yes.

I place more emphasis on the woman have the right to choose. It's the middle ground. I won't support a system that will force a woman to carry a pregnancy unwillingly, unlike pro-life position. Nor will support the other end of the spectrum, forcing women to have abortions.

Delirium

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

JC is correct regarding the laws around abortion being loosened further. Not only that, but we will no longer be able to have any further say on the matter.

We're voting on repealing the 8th, not democracy.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Delirium wrote:

We're voting on repealing the 8th, not democracy.

You see, we will never be allowed to vote on it again. The pro abortionists will have a field day!

J C

Delirium wrote: »

We're voting on repealing the 8th, not democracy.

... there is no logic to voting to remove all protection for unborn children on the basis that the unlimited abortion that is proposed to directly result from such repeal, might be tightened some time in the distant future ... it is doubly illogical ... when the political and media pressure is to match English law to prevent women having to travel for any abortion.

Delirium

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

You see, we will never be allowed to vote on it again. The pro abortionists will have a field day!

Even if the 8th amendment isn't up for a vote again if a repeal happens. There is no way to stop a government that leans more to pro-life stance from revoking abortion on demand access.

To suggest otherwise is to say that democracy collapses if repeal happens.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... there is no logic in voting to remove all protection for unborn children on the basis that the unlimited abortion that is proposed to directly result from such repeal, might be tightened some time in the distant future ... it is doubly illogical ... when the political and media pressure is to match English law to prevent women having to travel for any abortion.

Who suggested anything of the sort?

I merely stated that there is no constitutional barrier to revoking abortion on request at some point down the road.

I know it's late, but do try to address what I type rather than some daft alternative.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Delirium wrote:

Even if the 8th amendment isn't up for a vote again if a repeal happens. There is no way to stop a government that leans more to pro-life stance from revoking abortion on demand access.

Dream on!

Delirium

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Dream on!

walk me through the barriers to a pro-life government revoking abortion on request. Are they legal? Constitutional? How was the 8th enacted with these barriers you allude to in existence?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Even if the 8th amendment isn't up for a vote again if a repeal happens. There is no way to stop a government that leans more to pro-life stance from revoking abortion on demand access.

To suggest otherwise is to say that democracy collapses if repeal happens.

We're being asked to remove all constitutional protection for the unborn and to allow the introduction of abortion on demand. That is the horrific decision currently facing us ... period.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

We're being asked to remove all constitutional protection for the unborn and to allow the introduction of abortion on demand. That is the horrific decision currently facing us ... period.

That doesn't contradict (or even address) my post.

I understand how bad the idea of repealing the 8th is to you, but it's not the fall of democracy as being suggested on this thread.

smacl

Delirium wrote: »

That doesn't contradict (or even address) my post.

I understand how bad the idea of repealing the 8th is to you, but it's not the fall of democracy as being suggested on this thread.

Hardly a surprise when you consider the autocratic nature of the opening post and much of the subsequent supporting argument. God's will doesn't leave much room for democracy.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Delirium wrote:

walk me through the barriers to a pro-life government revoking abortion on request. Are they legal? Constitutional? How was the 8th enacted with these barriers you allude to in existence?

Where do you think you'd get a pro life government? The barrier was not there when the eighth was enacted. Thus we get a chance to vote. You do know that we will never be given a chance to vote on it again?

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

smacl wrote:

Hardly a surprise when you consider the autocratic nature of the opening post and much of the subsequent supporting argument. God's will doesn't leave much room for democracy.

And rightly so. When did a democracy decide what is morally right or wrong? Surely God's law supercedes all human law?

Delirium

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Where do you think you'd get a pro life government? The barrier was not there when the eighth was enacted. Thus we get a chance to vote. You do know that we will never be given a chance to vote on it again?

If a government can't get a pro-life mandate from the electorate, then that's democracy for you. Why should the 8th remain if the electorate doesn't support it?

It's a democratic country. That comes with good and bad times for any number of opinions in society.

Personally, I wouldn't write off any position from regaining votes over time. Pro-life included.

Delirium

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

And rightly so. When did a democracy decide what is morally right or wrong? Surely God's law supercedes all human law?

What you're talking about is a theocracy. For someone who was decrying the loss of opportunity to vote on something, it's somewhat ironic to support the notion of a theocracy.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Delirium wrote:

If a government can't get a pro-life mandate from the electorate, then that's democracy for you. Why should the 8th remain if the electorate doesn't support it?

If you're a non believer it doesn't matter. If you are a believer, you are in a different situation.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Delirium wrote:

What you're talking about is a theocracy. For someone who was decrying the loss of opportunity to vote on something, it's somewhat ironic to support the notion of a theocracy.

I will do my utmost to stop abortion. If I fail, it doesn't matter. In the end, I will be able to face my God with a clear conscience.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

If a government can't get a pro-life mandate from the electorate, then that's democracy for you. Why should the 8th remain if the electorate doesn't support it?

it should remain because right now it is the only option to protect the unborn's rights. sometimes what the electorate want isn't good for the country or society, and in exceptional circumstances their wishes must be ignored. exceptional circumstances being where the human and other non-negotiable rights of people are proposed to be removed and there is support from the electorate to remove those rights.

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

I will do my utmost to stop abortion. If I fail, it doesn't matter. In the end, I will be able to face my God with a clear conscience.

even if repeal are successful, that is not the end of the fight to stop abortion on demand. even if it is implamented, the fight can and will go on.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

end of the road wrote:

even if repeal are successful, that is not the end of the fight to stop abortion on demand. even if it is implamented, the fight can and will go on.

They will never win, because God is on our side.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

What you're talking about is a theocracy. For someone who was decrying the loss of opportunity to vote on something, it's somewhat ironic to support the notion of a theocracy.

No its not a theocracy ... but what is increasingly being proposed is an atheistic secular state ... that doesn't tolerate any cultural expressions of faith in the public domain.
Its a form of religious persecution masquerading as respecting diversity ... when it does nothing of the sort ... and instead imposes one ethos ... the atheistic secular one ... before which, every knee is expected to bend ... on every issue, from the control of schools and hospitals ... to abortion on demand ... and on a more trivial level, the repeal of the ban on drinking on Good Friday or the banning of Christmas Cribs and symbols on public premises
Indeed, they seem determined to even eliminate Christmas from the lexicon with the euphimism of 'the Holidays' or the 'winter festival', replacing it.

It seems that they are not content to retain even the smallest remnant of Christian culture.
It has to go ... or be re-purposed to an atheisitic secular objective.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

God said "Thou shalt not kill".

Bob_Marley

Delirium wrote: »

Not hiding anything. Yes and yes.

I place more emphasis on the woman have the right to choose. It's the middle ground. I won't support a system that will force a woman to carry a pregnancy unwillingly, unlike pro-life position. Nor will support the other end of the spectrum, forcing women to have abortions.

but you're happy enough if defenseless unborn children can be killed, some middle ground indeed.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

A woman's body is not hers. It is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Similarly with a man.

Bob_Marley

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

You see, we will never be allowed to vote on it again. The pro abortionists will have a field day!

If the 8th is not repealed, they will keep holding the referendum until it is.

It's not the first time an Irish government kept holding the same referendum,until they got the political result they wanted and then no more re-votes ever allowed. Pretend democracy at its finest.

Bob_Marley

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

A woman's body is not hers. It is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Similarly with a man.

don't be a prat. Religion has nothing to do with respecting the human right to life.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Bob_Marley wrote:

don't be an arsehole. Religion has nothing to do with respecting the human right to life.

You are fully entitled to believe that. Unfortunately, you will never get to heaven. Think about that.

Bob_Marley

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

You are fully entitled to believe that. Unfortunately, you will never get to heaven. Think about that.

well if that's the case at least you'll not be there either for preaching hateful fire and brimestone to others.

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

don't be a prat. Religion has nothing to do with respecting the human right to life.

I think, in fairness, many religious leaders are in the vanguard on right to life issues. I also accept that there are Atheists who are pro-life ... but the culture of Atheistic secularism is dominated by anti-life ideas, like abortion and euthanesia on demand.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

I will be there, because I am on God's side, and so are all pro lifers. The pro abortionists are doomed, and they know it. It is too late for them.

Bob_Marley

J C wrote: »

I think, in fairness, many religious leaders are in the vanguard on right to life issues. I also accept that there are Atheists who are pro-life ... but the culture of Atheistic secularism is dominated by anti-life ideas, like abortion and euthanesia on demand.

true atheism is just simply a lack of belief, other than than that atheists have absolutely noting in common.

nothing wrong with a simple honest lack of belief - if that someone honestly can't believe something to be true, they can't. - also Christians have failed to convince them remember, often because of their poor conduct and harsh words like owenybaloney

The rest of the stuff you refer to is not simple atheism, but in fact political anti-Christian, and anti-theism - state atheism - masked up as mere atheism.