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

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The baby cannot survive or grow without her.
If it were as simple as them being two separate entities/lives we could just remove the baby and let the woman get on with her life, and there would be no need for abortion at all.
However, while the unborn resides in her body, and depends on her for viability, well, they really aren’t all that separate.

Where is the equality in forcing a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant to carry to term?

The gender of the baby is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter whether it’s male or female.
The fact of the matter is, the woman is alive, living and breathing. She should be prioritized above the needs of an unborn who cannot live or survive outside the womb. Her womb. It’s as simple as that really.

she is prioritized over the needs of the unborn where required. she is not prioritized over the needs of the unborn where not required, as both are equal and there is no need to prioritize her. it's her womb but she is not allowed to kill the unborn inside it within the state, as the irish state recognises the unborn as the human beings they are and they recognise the unborn must have a right to life.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Are you going to be around to help financially and emotionally support this woman while she brings up the baby that she is forced to carry, yet bizarrely (according to you) what happens to the baby isn’t up to her?
Who should be in charge of decisions regarding the baby if not the mother?

i am helping to financially support this woman while she brings up the baby via my taxes. she isn't allowed to kill the unborn within the irish state, if she decides once born to put him or her up for adoption she can do that.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

The unborn child is also a living breathing innocent human being, lots of people can't survive without help from others, this isn't a reason to kill them, killing her child isn't a solution to anything.

They are incomparable and to suggest they are is a strawmans argument.
I would see my sister/friend/mother as more important and valuable than a mere weeks old pregnancy. I know my boyfriend would also see me as more important.

If you disagree, and think that an 8 week old fetus is more important than your female relative/partner carrying it, that’s your prerogative. Not everyone is going to feel the same and not everyone is going to be willing to make that sacrifice, though.
And that is exactly why I support repealing the 8th.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

she can't have the ultimate say as it's a separate life and a separate human being. the fact it is in her body is just part of the developmental stage, but it isn't hers to do with as she pleases, therefore what happens it cannot be up to her. both wants are equal unless medical necessity decides otherwise, for which the mother would be the one to be saved given she has the greatist chance of surviving. her wants can only be equal to the unborn in a proper humanitarian society bar medically necessary circumstances. if you are willing to afford the child rights once it is born, you have to afford it rights before it is born.

Are you going to be around to help financially and emotionally support this woman while she brings up the baby that she is forced to carry, yet bizarrely (according to you) what happens to the baby isn’t up to her?
Who should be in charge of decisions regarding the baby if not the mother?

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The baby cannot survive or grow without her.
If it were as simple as them being two separate entities/lives we could just remove the baby and let the woman get on with her life, and there would be no need for abortion at all.
However, while the unborn resides in her body, and depends on her for viability, well, they really aren’t all that separate.

Where is the equality in forcing a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant to carry to term?

The gender of the baby is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter whether it’s male or female.
The fact of the matter is, the woman is alive, living and breathing. She should be prioritized above the needs of an unborn who cannot live or survive outside the womb. Her womb. It’s as simple as that really.

The unborn child is also a living breathing innocent human being, lots of people can't survive without help from others, this isn't a reason to kill them, killing her child isn't a solution to anything.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

There's two lives and two bodies involved here, not one, and both of them could well be female. They have an equal right to life, you never achieve equal rights for human life by killing one of them.

The baby cannot survive or grow without her.
If it were as simple as them being two separate entities/lives we could just remove the baby and let the woman get on with her life, and there would be no need for abortion at all.
However, while the unborn resides in her body, and depends on her for viability, well, they really aren’t all that separate.

Where is the equality in forcing a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant to carry to term?

The gender of the baby is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter whether it’s male or female.
The fact of the matter is, the woman is alive, living and breathing. She should be prioritized above the needs of an unborn who cannot live or survive outside the womb. Her womb. It’s as simple as that really.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well I wouldn’t be prepared to afford that unborn child any rights at the expense of the living, breathing woman carrying that pregnancy.
They cannot be equal imo.
Her wants and needs are far superior and more important than those of the baby she is carrying. Until the baby is viable to survive on its own outside the womb, what happens to it should be up to her.
Because it resides inside her body, therefore she should have the ultimate say.

she can't have the ultimate say as it's a separate life and a separate human being. the fact it is in her body is just part of the developmental stage, but it isn't hers to do with as she pleases, therefore what happens it cannot be up to her. both wants are equal unless medical necessity decides otherwise, for which the mother would be the one to be saved given she has the greatist chance of surviving. her wants can only be equal to the unborn in a proper humanitarian society bar medically necessary circumstances. if you are willing to afford the child rights once it is born, you have to afford it rights before it is born.

railer201

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

How would she feel facing God not having repented of her abortion?

How would those who let her die feel facing God when they were in a position to save her life and chose not to do so ? There are sins of omission as well as sins of commission.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well I wouldn’t be prepared to afford that unborn child any rights at the expense of the living, breathing woman carrying that pregnancy.
They cannot be equal imo.
Her wants and needs are far superior and more important than those of the baby she is carrying. Until the baby is viable to survive on its own outside the womb, what happens to it should be up to her.
Because it resides inside her body, therefore she should have the ultimate say.

There's two lives and two bodies involved here, not one, and both of them could well be female. They have an equal right to life, you never achieve equal rights for human life by killing one of them.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

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

Well I wouldn’t be prepared to afford that unborn child any rights at the expense of the living, breathing woman carrying that pregnancy.
They cannot be equal imo.
Her wants and needs are far superior and more important than those of the baby she is carrying. Until the baby is viable to survive on its own outside the womb, what happens to it should be up to her.
Because it resides inside her body, therefore she should have the ultimate say.

Bob_Marley

J C wrote: »

Quite true ... but still heading towards the same result for Christians and Christianity.

yes, but it's very important to recognise and call it out for what it actually is, rather than for what it pretends to be.

Bob_Marley

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

How would she feel facing God not having repented of her abortion?

stop being so hateful for once in your life and deal with the plank in your own eye instead of casting stones.

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

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

nothing wrong with 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.

Quite true ... but still heading towards the same result for Christians and Christianity.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

railer201 wrote:

They don't - but majorities rule in a democracy. God's law will have various interpretations depending on your individual point of view, or particular Christian denomination. I was brought up with the more enlightened Christian viewpoint that the right to life of the mother was greater than that of the unborn child. If a hard choice had to be made then so be it.

How would she feel facing God not having repented of her abortion?

railer201

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

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

They don't - but majorities rule in a democracy. God's law will have various interpretations depending on your individual point of view, or particular Christian denomination. I was brought up with the more enlightened Christian viewpoint that the right to life of the mother was greater than that of the unborn child. If a hard choice had to be made then so be it.

In short no minority group has the right to force their beliefs on other people no matter how well intentioned their beliefs are. Thankfully democracy contains the necessary mechanism through the ballot box to prevent this happening. So we'll see how it turns out up ahead and I won't be getting excited about it one way or the other - there are far more pressing social problems in this country, such homelessness and chronic queues in the health service.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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.

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.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

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

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

God said "Thou shalt not kill".

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.