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…7071737576…174

Comments

  • #2162
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    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

    No one here is pro abortion. We are pro choice. Not one post here (or anywhere) has advocated that forced abortions be carried out on all female pregnant citizens against their will.
    Rather the opposite - we would like them to have a choice regarding their own personal pregnancy. No one will be forced into abortions they don’t want to have.
    There is a massive difference.


  • #2163
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,911 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    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

    Which would be fine, except that the post was in response to the phrase "it's alive" not "its a life". Organs inside our body are alive. Do you ever wonder why we use words like sperm, ovum, zygote, embryo, and foetus? You seem to think they're all babies, but really, they're not.


  • #2164
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    ....... wrote: »
    So are my kidneys, liver and other internal organs. And theyve got the same level of sentience as a 12 week old fetus.

    Of course they're not the same.
    Remove your kidneys or liver and you'll die.
    You won't die if a 12 week old fetus is removed. It will die.
    Some of us consider that 12 week old fetus as a separate entity and a separate life that's worthy of living what will eventually be a life independent of the bearer of that life.


  • #2165
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No one here is pro abortion. We are pro choice. Not one post here (or anywhere) has advocated that forced abortions be carried out on all female pregnant citizens against their will.
    Rather the opposite - we would like them to have a choice regarding their own personal pregnancy. No one will be forced into abortions they don’t want to have.
    There is a massive difference.

    We all have a choice when it comes to who we decide to kill and not kill, this isn't a valid reason for legalising something illegal. When you choose abortion it abortion forces the killing of an unborn child.


  • #2166
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    smacl wrote: »
    Which would be fine, except that the post was in response to the phrase "it's alive" not "its a life". Organs inside our body are alive. Do you ever wonder why we use words like sperm, ovum, zygote, embryo, and foetus? You seem to think they're all babies, but really, they're not.

    Do you not understand the difference between human life and a human organ either ? Or the difference between a sperm, and ovum, and zygote ?

    A sperm or an ovum is not human life, this is very basic biology.

    The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote .

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


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    ABC101 wrote: »
    I’m coming to the opinion that some desire abortion as pregnancy interferes with lifestyle choices. Nothing to do with health.

    i completely agree. it's about birth control and contraception IMO.
    smacl wrote: »
    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?

    as i explained in another post, it's not used instead of other forms of contraception but along with. it's a fallback option/fail safe option for when the other contraceptions fail in my view.
    the concern for the vast majority of the pro-life side are about the unborn, but i cannot guarantee there aren't extreme elements who are more concerned about restraining woman to their traditional roles. i would condemn those people and disagree with their view. i have no issue with someone wanting a career and not becoming a parent, but they should not be able to kill the unborn in an aim to achieve that goal.
    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    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

    i completely agree. comparing the unborn to other species and human organs is one of many invalid and unviable arguments put forward by people in the pro-choice side, dispite those arguments being constantly debunked and failing to bring anything to the discussion as they don't stand up to scruteny.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No one here is pro abortion. We are pro choice. Not one post here (or anywhere) has advocated that forced abortions be carried out on all female pregnant citizens against their will.
    Rather the opposite - we would like them to have a choice regarding their own personal pregnancy. No one will be forced into abortions they don’t want to have.
    There is a massive difference.

    the unborn will be forcibly killed against their will however.

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



  • #2168
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    smacl wrote: »
    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?

    Not all forms of contraception are 100% reliable. So in the event of a unwanted pregnancy where contraception has clearly failed then abortion can be seen as the final solution.

    Some persons get their tubes tied after having children or even before the chance to have a pregnancy / father a child arises.

    Some women who know they do not want the baby will chose adoption for their child etc

    I don’t subscribe to the notion of a religious organization attempting to control women. I have not come across this during my lifetime and I could never see it as feasible going forward.

    There are a lot of women who are anti abortion, I don’t think there would be so many if there was a ulterior motive to control women present by a religious organization.


  • #2169
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    We all have a choice when it comes to who we decide to kill and not kill, this isn't a valid reason for legalising something illegal. When you choose abortion it abortion forces the killing of an unborn child.

    What you just posted has nothing to do with your original said, or my reply.
    You said we were pro abortion, I explained we are pro choice. No one is or will be forcing women to have abortions against their will.


  • #2170
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    i completely agree. it's about birth control and contraception IMO.



    as i explained in another post, it's not used instead of other forms of contraception but along with. it's a fallback option/fail safe option for when the other contraceptions fail in my view.
    the concern for the vast majority of the pro-life side are about the unborn, but i cannot guarantee there aren't extreme elements who are more concerned about restraining woman to their traditional roles. i would condemn those people and disagree with their view. i have no issue with someone wanting a career and not becoming a parent, but they should not be able to kill the unborn in an aim to achieve that goal.



    i completely agree. comparing the unborn to other species and human organs is one of many invalid and unviable arguments put forward by people in the pro-choice side, dispite those arguments being constantly debunked and failing to bring anything to the discussion as they don't stand up to scruteny.



    the unborn will be forcibly killed against their will however.

    How do you know what their will is?


  • #2171
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,721 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Katie Full Leak wrote: »
    Of course they're not the same.
    Remove your kidneys or liver and you'll die.
    You won't die if a 12 week old fetus is removed. It will die.
    Some of us consider that 12 week old fetus as a separate entity and a separate life that's worthy of living what will eventually be a life independent of the bearer of that life.

    No actually. Remove a kidney and you won't die, but it will. Same as a foetus.

    The fact that the foetus, unlike a kidney, only takes and doesn't give, so doesn't help the woman inside whom it is located is not necessarily a reason to force her to continue making ne organs available for it.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,911 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    end of the road wrote: »
    as i explained in another post, it's not used instead of other forms of contraception but along with. it's a fallback option/fail safe option for when the other contraceptions fail in my view.

    No disagreement there and I don't doubt this happens in exceptional circumstances, but abortion will always be the option of last resort. While I have no problem with a woman choosing abortion in this instance, I do feel the rate at which it is needed in this instance would be significantly reduced with better sex education and promotion of contraception. Having the church that represents the majority of the people in this country prohibiting contraception no doubt leads to many more unwanted pregnancies than would otherwise be the case which in turn leads to main abortions that could otherwise be avoided.
    the concern for the vast majority of the pro-life side are about the unborn, but i cannot guarantee there aren't extreme elements who are more concerned about restraining woman to their traditional roles. i would condemn those people and disagree with their view. i have no issue with someone wanting a career and not becoming a parent, but they should not be able to kill the unborn in an aim to achieve that goal.

    I don't doubt your own sincerity at all there, but when I see hard-line conservative advocacy groups like the Iona Institute spending a lot of time and money in the pro-life campaign, I certainly don't trust their motives.


  • #2173
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,911 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Bob_Marley wrote: »
    Do you not understand the difference between human life and a human organ either ? Or the difference between a sperm, and ovum, and zygote ?

    A sperm or an ovum is not human life, this is very basic biology.

    The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote.

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

    Glad to see you have a grasp of basic biology. So by your definition above, the humans life begins at fertilization, which is in accordance with the Vatican stance. As such the morning after pill constitutes abortion, and assuming all human life shares the same worth, taking the morning after pill is thus no better or worse than say having a third trimester abortion or murdering an infant for that matter. Is this what you believe? If so, yikes! If not, at what stage in gestation do you say that 'a human life' suddenly gets the same right to life as a pregnant woman?


  • #2174
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,911 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    ABC101 wrote: »
    Not all forms of contraception are 100% reliable. So in the event of a unwanted pregnancy where contraception has clearly failed then abortion can be seen as the final solution.

    Yes.


  • #2175
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    How do you know what their will is?

    they have a right to live, and i have a duty to vote against anything that would put that right at risk.
    volchitsa wrote: »
    No actually. Remove a kidney and you won't die, but it will. Same as a foetus.

    The fact that the foetus, unlike a kidney, only takes and doesn't give, so doesn't help the woman inside whom it is located is not necessarily a reason to force her to continue making ne organs available for it.

    the fact it is a human being is a reason to stop her from killing it unless absolutely necessary however.
    smacl wrote: »
    No disagreement there and I don't doubt this happens in exceptional circumstances, but abortion will always be the option of last resort. While I have no problem with a woman choosing abortion in this instance, I do feel the rate at which it is needed in this instance would be significantly reduced with better sex education and promotion of contraception. Having the church that represents the majority of the people in this country prohibiting contraception no doubt leads to many more unwanted pregnancies than would otherwise be the case which in turn leads to main abortions that could otherwise be avoided.

    i would agree we need to improve sex education massively. genuine forms of contraception should be free. however abortion on demand being availible, and worse, free, is not something i can and will support under any circumstances. it's just not possible for me to do that.
    smacl wrote: »
    I don't doubt your own sincerity at all there, but when I see hard-line conservative advocacy groups like the Iona Institute spending a lot of time and money in the pro-life campaign, I certainly don't trust their motives.

    i don't like iona either. in saying that, given what is at stake, if them spending the money does bear fruit in getting a no vote and possibly better proposals being put forward which means i could vote repeal, then it's a good outcome, even if it is partly due to a group i don't like.

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



  • #2176
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    they have a right to live, and i have a duty to vote against anything that would put that right at risk.
    .

    You didn’t answer my question at all.
    How do you know what the will of the unborn is?


  • #2177
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    You didn’t answer my question at all.
    How do you know what the will of the unborn is?

    because i do. their will is not to be killed.

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



  • #2178
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    because i do. their will is not to be killed.

    You just made that up. Pure speculation.
    You can’t and don’t know what the will of the unborn is.
    None of us do. Pure lies on your part.


  • #2179
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    You just made that up. Pure speculation.
    You can’t and don’t know what the will of the unborn is.
    None of us do. Pure lies on your part.


    the unborn have a right to life unless medical necessity requires otherwise. they have a right not to be killed unless medical necessity requires it.

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



  • #2180
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    the unborn have a right to life unless medical necessity requires otherwise. they have a right not to be killed unless medical necessity requires it.

    That has absolutely nothing to do with their will, you just totally deflected there again.


  • #2181
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No one here is pro abortion. We are pro choice.
    Please face up to the truth about your position ... you are pro-abortion ... that is why you and like-minded people are asking us to vote to remove the anti-abortion 8th amendment ... and to introduce abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

    Your position is like somebody saying that they are not pro-drink driving ... just pro-choice in that regard. I think that everyone would 'join the dots' very quickly, especially if you were campaigning to remove the laws on drink driving, like pro-abortion people are doing with the 8th.


  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,911 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    end of the road wrote: »
    because i do. their will is not to be killed.

    Surely in the absence of religious belief, to have a will demands a mind and to have a mind involves having brain capable of producing a certain amount of brainwaves? Could you explain how something that does not have a functional brain can have a will? At what stage of gestation to you believe the unborn is capable of thought?


  • #2183
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    J C wrote: »
    Please face up to the truth about your position ... you are pro-abortion ... that is why you and like-minded people are asking us to vote to remove the anti-abortion 8th amendment ... and to introduce abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

    Your position is like somebody saying that they are not pro-tax evasion ... just pro-choice in that regard. I think that everyone would 'join the dots' very quickly.

    No, sorry, I will not let you, a stranger on the internet, tell me what MY opinion is.

    I have made my position clear. I am pro choice. I will not let you tell me otherwise.
    You might be used to your religion allowing you to ram your beliefs down other people’s throats for the last couple of centuries, but that won’t work with me. Or with most of modern society.

    I am in favour of women having full bodily autonomy. I am in favour of a woman choosing abortion if she so wishes. I am in favour of a woman choosing to progress with her pregnancy, if she wants to.
    I have compassion and respect for my fellow women and they have my full trust.
    I am pro people having control over their lives.

    I am not the triggered femanazi baby killer you and yours would like to make me out to me, and luckily I am so confident in my beliefs, that your posts neither bother me nor make me question my position.


  • #2184
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    Surely in the absence of religious belief, to have a will demands a mind and to have a mind involves having brain capable of producing a certain amount of brainwaves? Could you explain how something that does not have a functional brain can have a will? At what stage of gestation to you believe the unborn is capable of thought?
    If you're asleep, your will (and conscious mind) are not functioning ... but nobody has a right to kill you because of this.
    Ditto with unborn children, where the working assumption should be that they wouldn't want to be kiiled, no more than a new born baby ... who equally cannot verbalise this wish either, but nonetheless should have their lives protected as well.


  • #2185
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,911 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    J C wrote: »
    If you're asleep, your will (and conscious mind) are not functioning ... but nobody has a right to kill you because of this.
    Ditto with unborn children, where the working assumption should be that they wouldn't want to be kiiled, no more than a new born baby ... who equally cannot verbalise this wish either, but nonetheless should have their lives protected as well.

    Nonsense. Ever heard of an EEG? Your brain is still active even when you are asleep. If you go back to early stages of gestation, there is no brain. Bob_Marlay has suggested that human life begins at fertilization. Where would you place it on the time line and why?


  • #2186
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No, sorry, I will not let you, a stranger on the internet, tell me what MY opinion is.
    I have made my position clear. I am pro choice. I will not let you tell me otherwise.
    I'm not telling you what your opinion is ... just drawing the logical conclusion that everybody who is pro-choice for abortion is pro-abortion.

    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    You might be used to your religion allowing you to ram your beliefs down other people’s throats for the last couple of centuries, but that won’t work with me. Or with most of modern society.
    My faith is one of love ... no ramming of beliefs anywhere.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    I am in favour of women having full bodily autonomy. I am in favour of a woman choosing abortion if she so wishes. I am in favour of a woman choosing to progress with her pregnancy, if she wants to.
    I have compassion and respect for my fellow women and they have my full trust.
    I am pro people having control over their lives.
    I'm also in favour of people having control over their lives ... but such control cannot be achieved by killing other Human Beings.


  • #2187
    end of the road
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,533 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    That has absolutely nothing to do with their will, you just totally deflected there again.

    nope wrong, it has absolutely everything to do with their will, end of the road doesn't deflect under any circumstances.
    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    No, sorry, I will not let you, a stranger on the internet, tell me what MY opinion is.

    I have made my position clear. I am pro choice. I will not let you tell me otherwise.
    You might be used to your religion allowing you to ram your beliefs down other people’s throats for the last couple of centuries, but that won’t work with me. Or with most of modern society.

    I am in favour of women having full bodily autonomy. I am in favour of a woman choosing abortion if she so wishes. I am in favour of a woman choosing to progress with her pregnancy, if she wants to.
    I have compassion and respect for my fellow women and they have my full trust.
    I am pro people having control over their lives.

    I am not the triggered femanazi baby killer you and yours would like to make me out to me, and luckily I am so confident in my beliefs, that your posts neither bother me nor make me question my position.

    abortion on demand has nothing to do with bodily autonomy. a woman is not entitled to kill the unborn outside extreme circumstances. preventing the woman from killing the unborn is not controling her life. we don't have a right to kill outside extreme circumstances. as a human being, you have a duty to have both compassion and respect for both woman and baby.

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



  • #2188
    Bob_Marley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 626 ✭✭✭Bob_Marley


    WhiteRoses wrote: »
    What you just posted has nothing to do with your original said, or my reply.
    You said we were pro abortion, I explained we are pro choice. No one is or will be forcing women to have abortions against their will.

    When the mother chooses to kill her child, what choice was given to the child in the ending of their life ?


  • #2189
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,038 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Please face up to the truth about your position ... you are pro-abortion ... that is why you and like-minded people are asking us to vote to remove the anti-abortion 8th amendment ... and to introduce abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

    Your position is like somebody saying that they are not pro-drink driving ... just pro-choice in that regard. I think that everyone would 'join the dots' very quickly, especially if you were campaigning to remove the laws on drink driving, like pro-abortion people are doing with the 8th.

    By that line of reasoning, everyone who has posted on this thread (even you, JC) is pro-abortion. What I mean by that is I've not seen anyone propose an absolute ban on abortion, even in cases where the womans life is in jeopardy.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2190
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    smacl wrote: »
    Nonsense. Ever heard of an EEG? Your brain is still active even when you are asleep. If you go back to early stages of gestation, there is no brain. Bob_Marlay has suggested that human life begins at fertilization. Where would you place it on the time line and why?
    It is a fact that Human life begins at fertilisation.

    Why should the fact that a brain doesn't start developing until week 7 make any difference to when we can kill an unborn child?
    It has the potential to develop a brain ... and become a boards poster, from the moment of fertilisation.

    ... and that potential will never be realised if somebody kills her, at whatever age between fertilisation and ninety!!!

    Why this fixation with sentience and brain development?
    ... your sounding like a medieval theologian who believed that 'ensoulment' didn't happen until many weeks into a pregnancy.


  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    By that line of reasoning, everyone who has posted on this thread (even you, JC) is pro-abortion. What I mean by that is I've not seen anyone propose an absolute ban on abortion, even in cases where the womans life is in jeopardy.
    Pro-life people are pro-the-life of both the mother and her unborn child ... whereas so-called pro-choice people seem to be pro-abortion on demand.

    Do you really think that people will agree with you and vote to repeal the 8th if you keep maintaining that you are pro-choice ... but not really pro-repeal of the 8th or pro-abortion on demand up to 12 weeks?

    People will begin to wonder why you are asking them to take the blood of unborn children on their hands by voting for the repeal of the 8th and follow-on abortion on demand ... while you continue to coyly describe yourself as pro-choice but not pro-abortion.

    It sounds like you have serious reservations about abortion, just like pro-life people have.


Advertisement