Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

1…6768707273…174

Comments

  • #2072
    railer201
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 968 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2073
    ouxbbkqtswdfaw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭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?


  • #2074
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #2075
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2076
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2077
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2078
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2079
    railer201
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 968 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2080
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2081
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2082
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2083
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭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?


  • #2084
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • #2085
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭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.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2086
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    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?

    There are hundreds of Irish couples on waiting lists that could give this child a loving home, there's no need to kill them instead.


  • #2087
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    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.

    No human life is superior to another, your sister/friend/mother would not exist if someone had killed them while they were a defenseless unborn child.


  • #2088
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    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.

    they are comparable in terms of the fact they have equal rights. saving the mother's life does not require repeal of the 8th. you are supporting repeal on the basis of something that is already availible within the state.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • #2089
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    No human life is superior to another, your sister/friend/mother would not exist if someone had killed them while they were a defenseless unborn child.

    And if they did I would know nothing about it because they’d never have existed so I’d have nothing to worry about.


  • #2090
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    There are hundreds of Irish couples on waiting lists that could give this child a loving home, there's no need to kill them instead.

    Domestic adoption (outside of step parent/familial adoptions) is pretty much non existent in Ireland.

    I would also disagree with you about the hundreds of Irish couples - the average family size gets smaller every year, I think it’s 2 kids on average now. More couples than ever are opting not to have kids at all.
    And advances in fertility treatments (specifically clomid and IVF) mean that those who struggle now have many more options. Adoption is very far down the list for most people considering having children.

    The appetite for it that was prevalent in Ireland during the time of the laundries is no more.


  • #2091
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    And if they did I would know nothing about it because they’d never have existed so I’d have nothing to worry about.

    so by that logic as long as you don't know they were killed, it's ok to take their life.


  • Advertisement
  • #2092
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    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.



    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.

    Hopefully after the referendum they will no longer be equal and this will no longer be the case. Women will finally be free to make the best decisions for their own life without Church/State interference.


  • #2093
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    so by that logic as long as you don't know they were killed, it's ok to take their life.

    I trust other people to make the best decisions for their own lives, I have no business interfering with another woman’s reproductive organs. They are hers and hers alone.
    I don’t feel it’s my place to dictate what another woman does with her body.


  • #2094
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Domestic adoption (outside of step parent/familial adoptions) is pretty much non existent in Ireland.

    I would also disagree with you about the hundreds of Irish couples - the average family size gets smaller every year, I think it’s 2 kids on average now. More couples than ever are opting not to have kids at all.
    And advances in fertility treatments (specifically clomid and IVF) mean that those who struggle now have many more options. Adoption is very far down the list for most people considering having children.

    The appetite for it that was prevalent in Ireland during the time of the laundries is no more.

    Absolute rubbish. Just in my area, I know several women who can't have children and are desperate to adopt. An in law also adopted two children who have now both just recently finished primary school, and are living life to the full.


  • #2095
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Hopefully after the referendum they will no longer be equal and this will no longer be the case. Women will finally be free to make the best decisions for their own life without Church/State interference.

    Again their are two lives involved not one, and you don't increase human rights by removing them. And as for female rights, aborted children can be female just as much as male.


  • #2096
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    Absolute rubbish. Just in my area, I know several women who can't have children and are desperate to adopt. An in law also adopted two children who have now both just recently finished primary school, and are living life to the full.

    Good for them. It still isn’t a common occurrence. Doing it in Ireland is extremely limited, time consuming and expensive. Meanwhile the child is growing up in foster care wondering when they’ll (if ever) have their own home.
    That’s why most people who adopt do so internationally from India, Vietnam, Russia etc.
    Its far easier to do so from those countries.


  • #2097
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I trust other people to make the best decisions for their own lives, I have no business interfering with another woman’s reproductive organs. They are hers and hers alone.
    I don’t feel it’s my place to dictate what another woman does with her body.

    Yet your happy enough interfering with a defenseless unborn child's organs and dictating what happens their body, who also could be a female.


  • #2098
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    Good for them. It still isn’t a common occurrence. Doing it in Ireland is extremely limited, time consuming and expensive. Meanwhile the child is growing up in foster care wondering when they’ll (if ever) have their own home.
    That’s why most people who adopt do so internationally from India, Vietnam, Russia etc.
    Its far easier to do so from those countries.

    There's thousands of young adopted children living in Ireland, you'll find them happy and healthy in every town in Ireland. There's also thousands of Irish children in good foster homes in Ireland. The logic that it would have been kinder to kill them when they were innocent children in the womb doesn't stack up.


  • #2099
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    Again their are two lives involved not one, and you don't increase human rights by removing them. And as for female rights, aborted children can be female just as much as male.

    I don’t know why you keep being up gender, the gender of the baby is irrelevant.
    The fact is that the woman does not hold full bodily autonomy at the expense of affording the unborn rights.
    I don’t believe this to be fair or just.

    The state doesn’t even recognize the unborn as people until the 24 week mark, stillbirths and miscarriages before that point do not get death certificates. According to the state they never existed.
    Which is why it’s bizarre that the 8th amendment holds a mere weeks old fetus to be equal to that of the woman carrying it, it’s a contradiction.


  • #2100
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    Yet your happy enough interfering with a defenseless unborn child's organs and dictating what happens their body, who also could be a female.

    The point is flying over your head.
    The fetus cannot survive without the woman, it is inside her body, it should be up to her what happens it.
    When the baby can survive by itself it’s a different ball game.
    Whether it’s male or female is irrelevant, the woman should take priority regardless.


  • Advertisement
  • #2101
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I don’t know why you keep being up gender, the gender of the baby is irrelevant.
    The fact is that the woman does not hold full bodily autonomy at the expense of affording the unborn rights.
    I don’t believe this to be fair or just.

    You're the one that keeps bringing up females rights, yet don't see the irony of killing female children in the womb.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    The state doesn’t even recognize the unborn as people until the 24 week mark, stillbirths and miscarriages before that point do not get death certificates. According to the state they never existed.
    Which is why it’s bizarre that the 8th amendment holds a mere weeks old fetus to be equal to that of the woman carrying it, it’s a contradiction.

    And yet the need to remove human rights of the unborn chilld from the constitution.

    Humans have equal right to life, no one has a higher right to life than someone else.


Advertisement