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

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Why? ... because you say so ?
... and want to kill the foetus.

I don’t want to kill anything. I want women to have a choice to terminate a pregnancy if they so wish.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I agree Bob.
... and this is the best arguments that they can make for the repeal of the 8th ... and the introduction of abortion on demand ... quite pathetic really.

How long is acceptable to keep a decomposing body hooked up to life support to incubate a foetus?

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Just making you aware, I won’t be responding to any more of your posts.
I’m not going on another merry go round with you while you dole out your ‘facts’ and ignore any and all reasonable conversation.

I have no doubt that you are going to reply stating something along the lines of me not being able to face the truth etc, that isn’t the case either, I just find you exhausting to converse with and am frankly sick of repeating myself.

i'm sorry to hear that and that you feel that way, but it is the wrong outlook to hold. people who disagree with my view challenge me, and regardless, i will answer them if their question is reasonable, as it is the right thing to do. the allegations of which you have made within your posting are inaccurate also, and i would ask that you withdraw them. i have never made allegations against you, and have treated you with respect. so i would ask that you should treat me the same way, as much as i understand you completely disagree with me.

Delirium wrote: »

You've been informed numerous times what bodily autonomy is.

If you believe denying a woman an abortion doesn't affect her bodily autonomy then I would ask for your understanding of what bodily autonomy is. We should at least establish that we understand it to mean the same thing before addressing your claim its relation to abortion on request.

bodily autonomy is being able to control what you do with your body.
the reason i believe that abortion on demand is exempt from this is due to there being another human being in the form of the unborn, who would have their life taken by the act of abortion.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

bodily autonomy is being able to control what you do with your body.
the reason i believe that abortion on demand is exempt from this is due to there being another human being in the form of the unborn, who would have their life taken by the act of abortion.

Which means refusing a woman an abortion when requested does affect her bodily autonomy.

I accept you you may curtail it so she can't have the abortion from a pro-life perspective, but it still affects it.

Bob_Marley

J C wrote: »

I agree Bob.
... and this is the best arguments that they can make for the repeal of the 8th ... and the introduction of abortion on demand ... quite pathetic really.

Before engaging in this thread, I genuinely thought they might have some arguments beyond straw manning, sectarianism, and

"I want to the right to take the life of innocent and defenseless unborn children whenever it suits me, and I want any protection they have removed NOW"

- kinda depressing that's the level where societies thought capability is descending to at the moment. - But I'm also optimistic that human society will eventually evolve far enough to see abortion for what it is . . barbaric and medieval. Maybe things have to go down before they go up - sad though that so many innocent human lives will be destroyed in the meantime.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You seem to be having difficulties distinguishing the difference between a weeks old embryo and a living breathing person.

If I have to explain to you why an adult has more rights and legal protections than an embryo there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I'd like to hear the reasons.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Which means refusing a woman an abortion when requested does affect her bodily autonomy.

Refusing her request to take illegal drugs ... and drive after taking them, also affects her bodily autonomy ... but so what?

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

How long is acceptable to keep a decomposing body hooked up to life support to incubate a foetus?

it's not acceptable given the fetus is unlikely to survive.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

How long is acceptable to keep a decomposing body hooked up to life support to incubate a foetus?

Not very long ... if its decomposing.
It would be acceptable to keep a brain dead person on life support, to allow sufficient time for recipients of donated organs from the deceased to be prepped.
Equally, it would be accceptable to keep a brain dead pregnant woman on life support, to allow sufficient time for a caesarian to be organised to save her unborn child (assuming that it was already at a sufficient stage of development to survive).

I don't see that it is either ethically or medically wise to keep somebody on life support for a long time, to bring her child to term ... I don't think it will even work, as in the child being born alive, anyway.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Refusing here request to take illegal drugs ... and drive after taking them, also affects her bodily autonomy ... but so what?

Ok, so we're all on the same page on bodily autonomy.

Do you believe a person should be able to make informed medical decisions about their body?

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

I'd like to hear the reasons.

Because an embryo isn’t a person? Because the state doesn’t even legally recognize an embryo as a person?
Because you cannot even get a death certificate for a still birth for a lost pregnancy before 24 weeks because the state doesn’t even recognise it as a person?
Because under our legal system, we don’t charge women who travel to procure abortions with murder, because the state doesn’t recognize an embryo as a person?

Just a few reasons off the top of my head as to why abortion is not akin to murdering a living adult. I’m sure there are more.

ABC101

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Before engaging in this thread, I genuinely thought they might have some arguments beyond straw manning, sectarianism, and

"I want to the right to take the life of innocent and defenseless unborn children whenever it suits me, and I want any protection they have removed NOW"

- kinda depressing that's the level where societies thought capability is descending to at the moment. - But I'm also optimistic that human society will eventually evolve far enough to see abortion for what it is . . barbaric and medieval. Maybe things have to go down before they go up - sad though that so many innocent human lives will be destroyed in the meantime.

I'm very pessimistic myself about the whole thing. There is just no reasoning with some people / posters.

The difference between a foetus and a baby / toddler / child / teenager / adult / Old age Person is degrees of development of a human being.

Fundamentally at all stages it is human DNA, human kind etc.

It's one thing to believe in Abortion, but it is another to implement it in practise. Truly barbaric.

If abortion was a painless procedure then at least there would be some consolation. However it is not, in many cases is a horrible death on a defenceless, completely innocent human being / baby which has committed no wrong.

But there is hope with modern science / imaging software / HD micro cameras etc which will show future generations that abortion is the greatest holocaust of all humanity ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/astagnaro/abortionist-quits-after-st.-thomas-aquinas-visits-him-in-a-dream

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Before engaging in this thread, I genuinely thought they might have some arguments beyond straw manning, sectarianism, and

"I want to the right to take the life of innocent and defenseless unborn children whenever it suits me, and I want any protection they have removed NOW"

- kinda depressing that's the level where societies thought capability is descending to at the moment. - But I'm also optimistic that human society will eventually evolve far enough to see abortion for what it is . . barbaric and medieval. Maybe things have to go down before they go up - sad though that so many innocent human lives will be destroyed in the meantime.

Absolute hyperbole.
Many women have lost their lives because of the 8th. It also has huge implications on maternity care for wanted pregnancies and the concept of consent. You haven’t got a clue.

ABC101

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Absolute hyperbole.
Many women have lost their lives because of the 8th. It also has huge implications on maternity care for wanted pregnancies and the concept of consent. You haven’t got a clue.

How many women have lost their lives then?

SusieBlue

ABC101 wrote: »

How many women have lost their lives then?

Countless women. Off the top of my head there was Marek Thawley, Savita Halappanavar, Sheila Rodgers.
Even one woman is too many.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

Ok, so we're all on the same page on bodily autonomy.

Do you believe a person should be able to make informed medical decisions about their body?

i do yes . however, as i believe the unborn to be a separate human being, i don't believe they should be able to make a decisian to kill the unborn, unless the mother's life is under threat, she is under threat of permanent injury or disability, or the baby is unlikely to live to term.

uck51js9zml2yt

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.

Remove both kidneys and your dead!

The fact that a fetus takes is just part of a process. A week old baby takes as well. By your logic can kill it as well.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

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.

Except it is negotiable, hence the referendum.

ABC101

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Countless women. Off the top of my head there was Marek Thawley, Savita Halappanavar, Sheila Rodgers.
Even one woman is too many.

When I asked you to give a number on your claim that thousands of women have died..... it was a genuine question.

I did not ask for a handful of names which you provided.

Do you have a verifiable link to a Irish medical site / CSO webpage which shows the number of women who have died in Ireland due to not having access to abortion here?

SusieBlue

ABC101 wrote: »

When I asked you to give a number on your claim that thousands of women have died..... it was a genuine question.

I did not ask for a handful of names which you provided.

Do you have a verifiable link to a Irish medical site / CSO webpage which shows the number of women who have died in Ireland due to not having access to abortion here?

I don't. But the three I named are three too many. There was also the Miss X and the Miss P cases, both of whom were severely impacted by the 8th, though they didn't die from it. But even one death is too many.

I have no doubt that even if I sourced you a link to say 300, or 500 women died, or 20 women died each year, no matter what the number, you'd sneer and say that its no big deal.

One woman dying because of the 8th amendment is too many. Would you be happy for one of your female relatives to die because of the 8th amendment?

ABC101

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No matter what evidence is provided to show abortion is a painful procedure, there will be always some group who are biased in arguing the opposite.

https://www.oathofgodministries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/15-2.jpg

Have a look at the above image.... do you think it would be a painless procedure?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ABC101

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don't. But the three I named are three too many. There was also the Miss X and the Miss P cases, both of whom were severely impacted by the 8th, though they didn't die from it. But even one death is too many.

I have no doubt that even if I sourced you a link to say 300, or 500 women died, or 20 women died each year, no matter what the number, you'd sneer and say that its no big deal.

One woman dying because of the 8th amendment is too many. Would you be happy for one of your female relatives to die because of the 8th amendment?

So what about the 3,500 or so women who travel to the UK for an abortion. (This number is from what I have heard on the radio, numbers released by the UK medical service apparently).

How can it be justified for 3500 human lives to be extinguished (in agony) because of the 2 or 3 women who die (per year?) due to medical misadventure in Ireland?

ABC101

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The definition of countless is a number too many to be counted. Look it up yourself because you are obviously not going to take my word for it.

So yes you were right and I was wrong.... Whiteroses was expressing a figure greater than a thousand.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ABC101

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What you are really saying is that if a religious person / group makes a debating point about abortion, it can be discounted because the point has been made by a religious group.

.......

This post has been deleted.