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

WhiteRoses wrote:

Why are you talking in riddles? Say what you mean or donâ€™t say anything at all.

God's Word is talking to you.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You can’t see the wood from the trees. You have no idea of the circumstances other people find themselves in where abortion is necessary.
Not to mention the effects the 8th has on maternity care and consent.

You absolutely should facilitate other people having a choice in the matter, because to disagree with others having a choice is to imply that your opinion on the matter is superior to theirs, and that’s extremely arrogant.

You have no idea about what circumstances I'm familiar with and what I'm not, so we'll get back to the actual points.

I don't have to facilitate anyone in taking the life of a defenseless unborn child.

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

Bob_Marley wrote:

don't feed the troll folks

Just as in Noah's time, I cannot troll.

end of the road

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.

nobody is interfering with a woman's reproductive organs or dictating what she can do with her body. society via the constitution is telling her she cannot take another human being's life, a law that we all have to obey and is non-negotiable.

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.

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.

this isn't true, her bodily autonomy has nothing to do with the abortion issue. not being allowed to kill the unborn does not go against bodily autonomy. not being able to kill the unborn outside medical necessity is fair and just.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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.

as explained it can't be up to her what happens to the unborn as the unborn is a separate human being who has a right to life. both the unborn and it's mother have to be equal outside medical necessity otherwise it puts the rest of humanity in future danger. the baby cannot survive by itself for a number of years after it is born, it depends on the parent or parents for survival.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It’s a fetus/baby, it’s not like we’re talking about a 7 year old here. The gender is irrelevant anyway.

Look, as I said, I feel my sister/mother/friends are more important. You feel the embryo is.
That’s ok.
Only one of us is forcing their opinion on the other, though. And I would rather let other people make up their own mind rather than force everyone to let the unborn take priority over their partner/relative.

the unborn is only equal to the mother. it does not take priority over the mother. so your argument has failed.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

No they aren’t. If they were there would be no need for abortion because the baby could simply handed over to social services and there would be no harm done either way.

If a fertility clinic was on fire, and there was a woman inside, and you could only save one, would you save the unborn embryos in the Petri dishes or the woman?

the baby is alive. there would be a supposed need for abortion for birth control and contraception reasons, the main reason i believe it is used. your fertility clinic being on fire isn't relevant.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I’m asking which would take priority, in your opinion? If you could only save one?
And I don’t believe they should have no rights. I just believe the mothers rights should be superior.

and as explained, the mother's rights are superior where required.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

In your opinion. I think it can be very justifiable. And I know all about what is involved, and I still support repealing the 8th.

it is fact that it is not justifiable to take the life of the unborn outside medically necessary circumstances.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You can vote to repeal without being pro abortion. I myself would never have one and would offer all other options as preferable to that of abortion.

However, I can recognize that there are times and situations where abortion is the only choice. I support women having that choice in Ireland.
I don’t want any living person to suffer any further because of the 8th amendment.

the only times and situations where abortion is the only option is in cases of medical necessity. outside that, women don't require the ability or choice to kill the unborn in ireland, as the unborn are human beings and we don't allow the killing of other human beings.

david75 wrote: »

God save us from those that interfere with small boys and women’s wombs.

nobody is interfering with women's wombs, just reminding people that they cannot take the life of the unborn outside situations of medical necessity, such as where the mother's life is under threat, she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, or cases of where the baby will not live or cannot be viably caried to term. it is nothing to do with religion, given that many of us on the pro-life side are not part of a religion.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You can’t see the wood from the trees. You have no idea of the circumstances other people find themselves in where abortion is necessary.
Not to mention the effects the 8th has on maternity care and consent.

You absolutely should facilitate other people having a choice in the matter, because to disagree with others having a choice is to imply that your opinion on the matter is superior to theirs, and that’s extremely arrogant.

we should not facilitate people having the choice to kill other human beings, as long term that has the potential to bring danger upon society as it becomes more liberal. the opinion that it is wrong to take human life outside extreme circumstances is the only valid opinion for a modern progressive society like ours.
the government are fully to blame for putting many of us in the position where we cannot vote repeal as the unborn have to have their rights protected. there was another way by where necessary abortion could have been facilitated, and the 8th repealed with the issues in maternity care being resolved as they should be.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

pilly wrote: »

Again the mask slips. Nothing Christian about this.

well, there is nothing christian about killing the unborn outside medical circumstances, so it's not surprising that people are going to become passionate about such a massive issue where the human rights of the unborn are at stake. this will mean telling some cold hard truths even if uncomfortable, or will mean people giving opinions based on their experiences, and so on.

You really are a hoot,

You very stated you are not religious, yet you've claimed who can or cannot call themselves catholic or a Christian which is utterly laughable.

Here you are again decoding how a Christian can vote. A Christian can and do have abortions, plenty do and they are still Christians

Delirium

MOD NOTE

owenybaloney banned for one day for ignoring previous instructions/warnings about the standard of the posts and derailing threads.

ABC101

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, the living, breathing females who are carrying the pregnancies. The females who are actually alive. Not the fetuses/unborn babies.

Technically that cannot be correct. All humans regardless of degree of development are made up of cells.

The cells must be in a environment which is favorable to life, whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb.

A unborn baby cannot be made up of dead cells.

volchitsa

ABC101 wrote: »

Technically that cannot be correct. All humans regardless of degree of development are made up of cells.

The cells must be in a environment which is favorable to life, whether it is inside the womb or outside the womb.

A unborn baby cannot be made up of dead cells.

Nobody has said they are dead, but that they are not "alive and breathing", ie not alive in the way a human being is alive, with feelings and thoughts, but alive in the way a jellyfish is alive.

So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish?

If she chooses to do so, perfect, but if she chooses not to, for whatver reason, why should you or anyone else have the right to prevent her?

ABC101

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody has said they are dead, but that they are not "alive and breathing", ie not alive in the way a human being is alive, with feelings and thoughts, but alive in the way a jellyfish is alive.

So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish?

If she chooses to do so, perfect, but if she chooses not to, for whatver reason, why should you or anyone else have the right to prevent her?

Can you explain what you mean by not alive and breathing?

Cells obtain oxygen via the blood stream in a adult human. A unborn baby obtains oxygen / nutrients via the umbilical cord.

You mention pregnancy been forced upon women by law. Yet pregnancy is not a legal construct.

Pregnancy is a natural development in mammals.

Technically it would be more correct to state that nature is forcing the pregnancy process on a woman who successfully concieves.

volchitsa

ABC101 wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by not alive and breathing?

Cells obtain oxygen via the blood stream in a adult human. A unborn baby obtains oxygen / nutrients via the umbilical cord.

It's pretty simple really. Breathing means using your lungs in a reflex in/out action that brings fresh air in and expels used air.

Surviving by using oxygen put into your bloodstream by any other method is not breathing, it's tissue oxygenation.

You mention pregnancy been forced upon women by law. Yet pregnancy is not a legal construct.

Pregnancy is a natural development in mammals.

Technically it would be more correct to state that nature is forcing the pregnancy process on a woman who successfully concieves.

Lots of things are forced on us by nature. That doesnt stop us from finding ways to "beat" nature. Heart and lung transplants are as unnatural as it is possible to have, as indeed are blood transfusions. Which is why some religions are against them.

Personally I think the "it's natural" claim doesn't stand up to a second's thought, or we'd still be arguing about whether living in caves was an acceptable change from climbing up into trees for safety at night. And as for lighting fires to cook - heresy!

smacl

ABC101 wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by not alive and breathing?

Cells obtain oxygen via the blood stream in a adult human. A unborn baby obtains oxygen / nutrients via the umbilical cord.

You mention pregnancy been forced upon women by law. Yet pregnancy is not a legal construct.

Pregnancy is a natural development in mammals.

Technically it would be more correct to state that nature is forcing the pregnancy process on a woman who successfully concieves.

If you look at the facts, a baby starts practising breathing at 32 weeks into the pregnancy. Of course it doesn't actually start breathing until after it is born. Obtaining oxygenated blood through the umbilical chord is not breathing.

All this still comes back to the question of what stage in the pregnancy we consider the foetus to be a child. This is clearly a matter of opinion, where opinions differ hugely. Surely the opinion that matters here, first and foremost, is that of the pregnant woman.

Bob_Marley

Cabaal wrote: »

You really are a hoot,

You very stated you are not religious, yet you've claimed who can or cannot call themselves catholic or a Christian which is utterly laughable.

Here you are again decoding how a Christian can vote. A Christian can and do have abortions, plenty do and they are still Christians

funny how if a Catholic/Christian contradicts their faith in a way that pleases you in the taking of human life, they are great Catholics/Christians, but if they contradicted it in another way you'd be the first to judge them.

recedite

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I’m asking which would take priority, in your opinion? If you could only save one?
And I don’t believe they should have no rights. I just believe the mothers rights should be superior.

That is exactly the position now, with the 8th amendment in place. Abortion is fully legal in Ireland if the mothers life is genuinely threatened by the pregnancy. Everyone agrees on that.

volchitsa wrote: »

So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish?

This is where the differences of opinion come in. A threat to her "health" could mean anything from serious illness, to morning sickness, to the the threat of the dreaded stretch marks.

J C

fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »

Just as in Noah's time, I cannot troll.

There is no need to troll ... one could objectively conclude that there is something very wrong in hearts that are coldly planning the killing of unborn children ... just because they want to.
It is thought that Human reproduction was stopped and genetic monstrosities where being created in the run up to Noah's Flood ... and we seem to be heading in the same direct now ... as if to fulfill Jesus Christ's prophecy in realtion to the end times, when He will return.
In this regard, things will get so bad and so evil that :-
"Unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened." (Matthew 24:22 New King James Version (NKJV))

J C

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody has said they are dead, but that they are not "alive and breathing", ie not alive in the way a human being is alive, with feelings and thoughts, but alive in the way a jellyfish is alive.

So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish?

If she chooses to do so, perfect, but if she chooses not to, for whatver reason, why should you or anyone else have the right to prevent her?

For the same reason we would prevent her killing her born child.
Her unborn child is a living Human Being ... with the Human Right to life that every other Human Being enjoys.

To use a popular phrase 'its alive inside' !!

342x256xBIB-W12.png,qwidth=475.pagespeed.ic.ok7RhtC3JH.jpg

342x256xBIB-W12.png,qwidth=475.pagespeed.ic.ok7RhtC3JH.jpg

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

You really are a hoot,

You very stated you are not religious, yet you've claimed who can or cannot call themselves catholic or a Christian which is utterly laughable.

Here you are again decoding how a Christian can vote. A Christian can and do have abortions, plenty do and they are still Christians

Professed Christians do sometimes kill ... but they cannot claim to be acting as a Christian when they do.
... and whether it is a born Human or an unborn Human, they will be in breach of the sixth commandment to not kill.

The point is that breaking the sixth commandment is a deeply sinful act ... and not something that can be countenenced or condoned by any Christian in any circumstance ... except in absolute extremis.

... and all of the Chrisitan Churches in Ireland have expressed their opposition to the repeal of the 8th and the introduction of abortion on demand.

smacl

Bob_Marley wrote: »

funny how if a Catholic/Christian contradicts their faith in a way that pleases you in the taking of human life, they are great Catholics/Christians, but if they contradicted it in another way you'd be the first to judge them.

With respect, the poster your criticising is being critical of another atheist for suggesting they can dictate how a Christian should behave. They're not taking any such stance themselves, so your above point is baseless accusation. If you'd said it about EOTR you'd be more on target.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

For the same reason we would prevent her killing her born child.
Her unborn child is a living Human Being ... with the Human Right to life that every other Human Being enjoys.

To use a popular phrase 'its alive inside' !!

Oh look

More cartoons

.......

This post has been deleted.

indy_man

A Christian must oppose abortion.

Bob_Marley

indy_man wrote: »

A Christian must oppose abortion.

Or rather anyone who genuinely respects the human right to life of unborn children. A person does not need to be a Christian to respect a defenseless innocent life.

Bob_Marley

smacl wrote: »

With respect, the poster your criticising is being critical of another atheist for suggesting they can dictate how a Christian should behave. They're not taking any such stance themselves, so your above point is baseless accusation. If you'd said it about EOTR you'd be more on target.

So they are not claiming Christians should vote for abortion ? Maybe you could let let the poster answer for their own posts and speak for themselves ?

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

You really are a hoot,

You very stated you are not religious, yet you've claimed who can or cannot call themselves catholic or a Christian which is utterly laughable.

Here you are again decoding how a Christian can vote. A Christian can and do have abortions, plenty do and they are still Christians

it is the case i'm not christian or of a religion at all. however, it's not laughable to state who i believe to be a catholic or christian or not, based on my limited knowledge of the religion's teachings. being of the religion requires one to follow the teachings of that religion, whether it be the basic teachings or all of the teachings. most of the people i claim aren't catholic don't follow the basic teachings. in my view, true christians don't have abortions, as that would go against the commandment of one shall not kill. a true christian can legally vote whatever way they like, but moraly and religiously they must vote against anything that allows the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. i seem to be getting agreement on my stance from christians both here, and who i personally know, so i suspect i'm correct on my stance.

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody has said they are dead, but that they are not "alive and breathing", ie not alive in the way a human being is alive, with feelings and thoughts, but alive in the way a jellyfish is alive.

So the question is why should the living breathing woman who may well have other people dependent on her, be forced by law to give priority over her own health to something with the consciousness level of a jellyfish?

If she chooses to do so, perfect, but if she chooses not to, for whatver reason, why should you or anyone else have the right to prevent her?

except they are actually a human being. a human being isn't simply something that lives and breathes, but something that has the potential to once it develops to a certain stage. therefore the unborn are human being. you are confusing human being with personhood, which i'd agree there are differing views of when that begins. the woman is not forced by law to give priority to the unborn over her health, she can have an abortion if she is facing a serious health threat. the unborn simply have an equal right to life unless medical necessity requires otherwise, and the woman is not allowed to kill the unborn. society has a right to prevent her from killing the unborn as the unborn are human beings and we do not allow the killing of human beings once born.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

that's not relevant as we have established the sentients line of argument is invalid and unviable in this debate, as we don't base human rights on sentients.

smacl

Bob_Marley wrote: »

So they are not claiming Christians should vote for abortion ? Maybe you could let let the poster answer for their own posts and speak for themselves ?

Nope, they're clearly saying atheists shouldn't dictate how Christians should vote. To paraphrase one of your own recent posts;

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Unlike you they are having a debate about the issues instead of attacking the other person. It's time to take the plank out of your eye and stop casting stones.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Oh look

More cartoons

So that's all you think of Human life !!!

More anatomically correct images of 12 week old unborn children ... illustrating the Humanity of these little Human Beings that it is proposed to kill with impunity, if the 8th is repealed.

ABC101

recedite wrote: »

That is exactly the position now, with the 8th amendment in place. Abortion is fully legal in Ireland if the mothers life is genuinely threatened by the pregnancy. Everyone agrees on that.

This is where the differences of opinion come in. A threat to her "health" could mean anything from serious illness, to morning sickness, to the the threat of the dreaded stretch marks.

I’m coming to the opinion that some desire abortion as pregnancy interferes with lifestyle choices. Nothing to do with health.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So are you saying that I can kill you to obtain your 'non-sentient' kidneys, liver and other internal organs?
Of course you're not ... and only a very dangerous person would even think of doing such a thing.

... although a particular atheistic secular state is currently killing healthy people to harvest their organs.
Quote:-
"Experts estimate between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted annually, and the majority of the hearts, livers and other organs are obtained by executing prisoners of conscience.

In all, approximately 1.5 million transplants have taken place at 712 liver and kidney transplant centres across China since 2000, with over 300,000 of those taking place at unregulated centres."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-carrying-out-millions-of-illegal-organ-transplants-annually-report-finds-a7107091.html

These extreme secularists are deeply involved in a culture of death right across the World, ranging from organ harvesting in China to demanding abortion and euthaneasia on demand in Europe.

In Ireland they are not prepared to countenance any vestige of Christian culture being left intact such is the deeply anti-christ commitment of agressive secularism.
Agressive Secularism wants to either ban or re-purpose all that Christians hold dear. A good example of this 're-purposing' is the complete secularistion of St Patricks Day ... which ostensibly celebrates the arrival of Christianity in Ireland.
They have informally re-named it 'Paddys Day' a disparaging reference to 'Paddy the Irishmans' Day ... and they have turned it into a celebration of everything except Christianity in Ireland.
Indeed, I haven't seen a Christian-themed float in the National Parade in Dublin for years. Like I keep saying ... you couldn't make this stuff up ... and if you did, nobody would believe that it could occur.

smacl

ABC101 wrote: »

I’m coming to the opinion that some desire abortion as pregnancy interferes with lifestyle choices. Nothing to do with health.

Pregnancy certainly could interfere with lifestyle choices, but that does not suggest that abortion be used as a form of routine birth control. Why on earth would any woman choose to have an abortion when there are so many forms of contraception and emergency contraception easily available? Yes, you'll get the occasional abortion where a contraceptive may have failed, but thanks in part to a Catholic ethos that prohibits contraception, you're far more likely to get abortion through contraception not being used.

Of course one also wonders whether the pro-life concerns are entirely about the unborn, or is this an excuse used by religious conservatives to restrain woman to their traditional roles? One obvious lifestyle choice for anyone is to have a career and not become a parent. Do you think of this as unreasonable?

Bob_Marley

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Are there many other pro abortion people that genuinely don't know the difference between a human organ and human life ?
.... that would indeed explain a lot.

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html