Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

end of the road · 14-02-2018 11:14PM

david75 wrote: »

i'm not exploiting anything..

using images of new born babies and down syndrome children in the pro life campaign, THAT is exploitation, cynical, misleading and repugnant as usual from the PLC

no it's simply providing factual information, the uncomfortable truth of abortion.

david75 wrote: »

a foetus is not a child.
forcing women to have birth is repugnant. no different than forcing young girls to undergo genital multilation, but hey, extreme religious views are stillconsistently attacking women and their bodies and its the year 2018.
time to eradicate any and all kind of morality or belief coming near a womans personal health and personal space. meaning your beliefs have no place whatsoever in a womans womb.

a fetus is a human being, and will be a person/child. preventing the killing of the unborn outside medical necessity is as far from repugnant as it gets. the complete opposite to fgm, which is a disgusting practice and should be banned, with those carying it out and facilitating it sentenced to life in prison. being against abortion on demand is not dictating, and has nothing to do with religion. morality comes between one's personal space on a daily basis via the law. if you want to eradicate all morality coming between a woman and her personal space/health, then we have to make women exempt from all of the laws in society. that's not viable. the law has every place in a woman's womb when it is stopping her from killing her unborn child, or stopping someone else from killing her unborn child.

....... · 14-02-2018 11:23PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 14-02-2018 11:24PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 14-02-2018 11:46PM

as we have established sentients isn't relevant to the debate as we don't base human rights on sentients. so who is and isn't sentient means jot in relation to the abortion debate.

pilly · 15-02-2018 12:03AM

end of the road wrote:

as we have established sentients isn't relevant to the debate as we don't base human rights on sentients. so who is and isn't sentient means jot in relation to the abortion debate.

Nope, wrong again. Do try harder.

Delirium · 15-02-2018 09:51AM

end of the road wrote: »

as we have established sentients isn't relevant to the debate as we don't base human rights on sentients. so who is and isn't sentient means jot in relation to the abortion debate.

Ireland has been heavily criticised for violating the human rights of women due to the current situation regarding the availability of abortion:

THE UN HUMAN Rights Committee has found that Ireland’s law prohibiting and criminalising abortion has violated the human rights of a woman.
The committee has ordered Ireland to reform its restrictive abortion laws following the decision, which is the second time in a year that legislation has been deemed to violate a woman’s human rights.

The finding, which can be read here, was made in relation to the case of Siobhán Whelan, who was denied an abortion in 2010 after the diagnosis of a fatal foetal abnormality. It echoes the same committee’s June 2016 decision in the case of Amanda Mellet, who chose to travel to the UK to have a termination.

Source

end of the road · 15-02-2018 02:34PM

Delirium wrote: »

Ireland has been heavily criticised for violating the human rights of women due to the current situation regarding the availability of abortion:

with the greatist of respect, the UN'S opinion on the matter, regardless of being wrong in my view in terms of abortion on demand, is completely irrelevant given they voted saudi arabia on to the women's human rights commission.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission-appointment-anger-reaction-kingdom-hrf-mona-a7700866.html

Delirium · 15-02-2018 02:46PM

end of the road wrote: »

with the greatist of respect, the UN'S opinion on the matter, regardless of being wrong in my view in terms of abortion on demand, is completely irrelevant given they voted saudi arabia on to the women's human rights commission.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission-appointment-anger-reaction-kingdom-hrf-mona-a7700866.html

so what organisations/groups do you deem as acceptable for inclusion in relation to whose human rights are being violated?

Fian · 15-02-2018 02:50PM

J C wrote: »

They can ... but where a vote they cast has serious predictable follow-on moral and ethical implications, they bear full moral rsponsibilty for those follow-on moral and ethical issues.

I fully agree. That's exactly why I will vote to repeal.

end of the road · 15-02-2018 03:02PM

Delirium wrote: »

so what organisations/groups do you deem as acceptable for inclusion in relation to whose human rights are being violated?

in this day and age it's hard to know, seeing as the 2 main organisations who i would once have trusted in relation to talking about human rights violations, have shown themselves not to be the good organisations i once thought they were.
that asside though, i am not in a position to ever agree that the lack of availability of abortion outside medical circumstances is a human rights violation, in my opinion it's availability would be a human rights violation in terms of the unborn's rights.

SusieBlue · 15-02-2018 03:04PM

end of the road wrote: »

with the greatist of respect, the UN'S opinion on the matter, regardless of being wrong in my view in terms of abortion on demand, is completely irrelevant given they voted saudi arabia on to the women's human rights commission.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/saudi-arabia-un-womens-rights-commission-appointment-anger-reaction-kingdom-hrf-mona-a7700866.html

Didn’t you post recently agreeing with the UN’s opinion that the traveling community are one of the most discriminated against minorities in Europe?
Bit hypocritical, no?

Delirium · 15-02-2018 03:06PM

end of the road wrote: »

in this day and age it's hard to know, seeing as the 2 main organisations who i would once have trusted in relation to talking about human rights violations, have shown themselves not to be the good organisations i once thought they were.
that asside though, i am not in a position to ever agree that the lack of availability of abortion outside medical circumstances is a human rights violation, in my opinion it's availability would be a human rights violation in terms of the unborn's rights.

what I'm trying to determine is what informs your opinion about what is or isn't a human rights violation. You're essentially saying that you work from what you decide is or isn't a number right.

E.g. " i am not in a position to ever agree that the lack of availability of abortion outside medical circumstances is a human rights violation".

end of the road · 15-02-2018 03:23PM

Delirium wrote: »

what I'm trying to determine is what informs your opinion about what is or isn't a human rights violation. You're essentially saying that you work from what you decide is or isn't a number right.

E.g. " i am not in a position to ever agree that the lack of availability of abortion outside medical circumstances is a human rights violation".

the same thing that has formed my opinions on many subjects. mainly logic and arguments and information that i find stands up to scruteny when examined. experience also in the case of some opinions.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Didn’t you post recently agreeing with the UN’s opinion that the traveling community are one of the most discriminated against minorities in Europe?
Bit hypocritical, no?

nope, tnot at all. that information came out before the UN did the unthinkible and voted saudi arabia on to the women's human rights commission, and you would only need to look at the traveler threads on here to see how much discrimination travelers face.

pilly · 15-02-2018 04:25PM

So EOTR is now the self elected human rights organisation for the world?

Nick Park · 15-02-2018 05:17PM

pilly wrote: »

So EOTR is now the self elected human rights organisation for the world?

Each one of us are our own self-elected deciders on what we deem to be human rights or not. (Except for a few sheep who choose to accept everything they are told without question).

There are organisations that share their opinions, but even they don't agree among themselves (which is why the UN committee's findings about Ireland were not unanimous).

For example, UN human rights committees, commissions and councils have, in the past, refused to condemn the actions of Sudan in Darfur as human rights violations. I hold a different view.

The various UN human rights bodies also shift and change their mind. For decades they have hummed and hawed about capital punishment, deeming it ok in certain circumstances. I have always disagreed with them on this, Now they are slowly coming round to my way of thinking! Does this mean human rights have changed? No, it simply means UN bodies sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.

Nick Park · 15-02-2018 05:19PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Didn’t you post recently agreeing with the UN’s opinion that the traveling community are one of the most discriminated against minorities in Europe?
Bit hypocritical, no?

It's hypocritical to agree with a UN body on one issue but not on another issue? Really? If you agree with one thing that someone else says, then you must agree with everything they say?

uck51js9zml2yt · 15-02-2018 05:24PM

david75 wrote: »

a foetus is not a child.
forcing women to have birth is repugnant. no different than forcing young girls to undergo genital multilation, but hey, extreme religious views are stillconsistently attacking women and their bodies and its the year 2018.
time to eradicate any and all kind of morality or belief coming near a womans personal health and personal space. meaning your beliefs have no place whatsoever in a womans womb.

There are posters here who hold this view and who aren't religious, so what's your point?

....... · 15-02-2018 05:25PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 15-02-2018 05:28PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It's hypocritical to agree with a UN body on one issue but not on another issue? Really? If you agree with one thing that someone else says, then you must agree with everything they say?

He specifically stated that the UN’s opinion on the matter was irrelevant.
On a different, recent thread about the traveling community he used the opinion of the UN on that matter to back up his point.
So clearly the opinion of the UN only has relevance when it suits him.

pilly · 15-02-2018 05:30PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Each one of us are our own self-elected deciders on what we deem to be human rights or not. (Except for a few sheep who choose to accept everything they are told without question).

There are organisations that share their opinions, but even they don't agree among themselves (which is why the UN committee's findings about Ireland were not unanimous).

For example, UN human rights committees, commissions and councils have, in the past, refused to condemn the actions of Sudan in Darfur as human rights violations. I hold a different view.

The various UN human rights bodies also shift and change their mind. For decades they have hummed and hawed about capital punishment, deeming it ok in certain circumstances. I have always disagreed with them on this, Now they are slowly coming round to my way of thinking! Does this mean human rights have changed? No, it simply means UN bodies sometimes get it right and sometimes get it wrong.

Hmm, so by your logic each and every one of us is our own human rights decider?

That surely solves all problems. I'll have an abortion if I want, you don't have one if you want.

Simples, no?

Nick Park · 15-02-2018 05:35PM

pilly wrote: »

Hmm, so by your logic each and every one of us is our own human rights decider?

That surely solves all problems. I'll have an abortion if I want, you don't have one if you want.

Simples, no?

You are free to decide for yourself that any activity, be it child abuse, slavery or anything else, are not human rights violations. No-one can stop you holding whatever opinion on the subject you want

Of course the rest of us are also free to decide that they are human rights violations and to vote and lobby for the law to reflect that.

Very simples.

NuMarvel · 15-02-2018 05:35PM

Nick Park wrote: »

It's hypocritical to agree with a UN body on one issue but not on another issue? Really? If you agree with one thing that someone else says, then you must agree with everything they say?

If the reason for not agreeing with them on one area of human rights is that they have no credibility on the matter of human rights, then it would seem to be contradictory to agree with them in another area of human rights.

EOTR's stance now is that he is in agreement with decisions made by the UN before Saudi Arabia was voted onto a committee in April 2017. But that's still contradictory, because in the case of Amanda Mellet, the UN found our abortion laws breached her human rights in June 2016; 10 months before the Saudi Arabia vote.

I'm sure that his stance will change again light of this, which further reinforces the contradictory nature of his position. And it will ultimately always be contradictory, because his views aren't informed by a human rights perspective, so they will never be in line with human rights, which most people understand to be those set out by the UN, the ECHR, and so on.

end of the road · 15-02-2018 05:50PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

everything i have posted on the subject of abortion is logical and stands up to scruteny. i have never made the statement you have claimed that i have made and which you have posted within your post, it is you who claimed i made such a statement when i didn't. i have made nothing but reasoned and logically sound arguments and all stand up to logic and scruteny.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

He specifically stated that the UN’s opinion on the matter was irrelevant.
On a different, recent thread about the traveling community he used the opinion of the UN on that matter to back up his point.
So clearly the opinion of the UN only has relevance when it suits him.

this means nothing and is irrelevant. i have no obligation to share all the views of someone just because i may share the same view as them on one subject.

NuMarvel wrote: »

If the reason for not agreeing with them on one area of human rights is that they have no credibility on the matter of human rights, then it would seem to be contradictory to agree with them in another area of human rights.

EOTR's stance now is that he is in agreement with decisions made by the UN before Saudi Arabia was voted onto a committee in April 2017. But that's still contradictory, because in the case of Amanda Mellet, the UN found our abortion laws breached her human rights in June 2016; 10 months before the Saudi Arabia vote.

I'm sure that his stance will change again light of this, which further reinforces the contradictory nature of his position. And it will ultimately always be contradictory, because his views aren't informed by a human rights perspective, so they will never be in line with human rights, which most people understand to be those set out by the UN, the ECHR, and so on.

my stance is not hypocritical and i'm happy with it. i don't believe abortion on demand to be a human right. medical abortions where such is required to save the life of the mother or prevent permanent injury or disability, i would agree they could be classed as a human right given non-performance of them is highly likely to have a serious outcome.

J C · 15-02-2018 08:09PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Its strange that you would describe the second link as somebody who is having a dream.

So please allow me to explain, the second link is about Stojan Adasevic who is possibly responsible for carrying out 48,000 terminations of human life.

He has personally witnessed and actioned cutting up of babies, removed hearts still beating.

In the former Yugoslavia abortion was even permitted on a born baby, as long as the baby did not make a sound. So immediately the baby was born, it could be turned upside down and drowned in a bucket of water. All perfectly legal as the cries / screams were not possible to be heard.
.

Drowning children at birth wasn't unique to Yugoslavia ... the standard procedure for aborted children who were born alive, in some facilities, was to drown them in a bucket of Formaldehyde.
It adds whole new (and utterly horrific) dimension to the 'Silent Scream'.

These precious and utterly vulnerable little children have no voice but ours to help defend them.

I have great faith in the common decency of the Irish People (young and old) ... and I have no doubt that when faced with signing the death warrant for untold thousands of unborn children, by voting on the 8th, they will not take the blood of these innocent little ones upon themselvs.
Why should they damn themselves to facilitate some woman who is 'too posh to push' and stay pregnant ... and will kill her unborn child, just because she wants to?

SusieBlue · 15-02-2018 08:14PM

J C wrote: »

Adda a whole new 9and utterly horrific) dimension to the 'Silent Scream'.

These percious and utterly vulnerable little children have no voice but ours to help defend them.

I have great faith in the common decency of the Irish People (young and old) ... and I have no doubt that when faced with signing the death warrant for untold thousands of unborn children, by voting on the 8th, they will not take the blood of these innocent little ones upon themselvs.
Why should they damn themselves to facilitate some woman who is 'too posh to push' and stay pregnant ... and will kill her unborn child, just because she wants to?

This isn’t the first time you’ve made such a statement.
Your attitude is absolutely disgusting and you are the type of person I’d hope to never meet in real life. Absolutely horrible post.

J C · 15-02-2018 08:21PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Very few pharmacys are often open late or on Sundays, I know at least 3 women who've been refused them based on the pharmacys religious beliefs.

So it's a case of somebody being forced into a situation by a religious person against their will.

Nobody forced them to be utterly irresponsible and engage in sex while drunk or otherwise un-prepared.
They are morally responsible Humans ... not wild animals with no self-control
Its like somebody crashing while drunk ... and complaining that there wasn't an ambulance there within 5 minutes to pick them up off the road.
People need to take responsibility for their actions ... and stop blaming others for their self-imposed misadventures.

SusieBlue · 15-02-2018 08:25PM

J C wrote: »

Nobody forced them to be utterly irresponsible and engage in sex while drunk or otherwise un-prepared.
They are morally responsible Humans ... not wild animals with no self-control
Its like somebody crashing while drunk ... and complaining that there wasn't an ambulance there within 5 minutes to pick them up off the road.
People need to take responsibility for their actions ... and stop blaming others for their self-imposed misadventures.

And you believe the best thing to do to such irresponsible people is to teach them a life lesson bt forcing parenthood on them, entrusting them with the HUGE responsibly of bringing up another human.

Sound logic right there.

J C · 15-02-2018 08:36PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This isn’t the first time you’ve made such a statement.
Your attitude is absolutely disgusting and you are the type of person I’d hope to never meet in real life. Absolutely horrible post.

You can't handle the truth!!

That's what abortion on demand facilitates ... no reason or excuse required ... just because I want to.

Please stop making unfounded personal comments ... I'm actually a very pleasant person ... I just have very little sympathy for people who behave irresponsibly ... and then want to kill as a means of resolving their irresponsibilty.

J C · 15-02-2018 08:41PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And you believe the best thing to do to such irresponsible people is to teach them a life lesson bt forcing parenthood on them, entrusting them with the HUGE responsibly of bringing up another human.

Sound logic right there.

I don't actually ... but people don't have to damn themselves to pull these irresponsible people out of a self-caused misadventure.
... and it's not that HUGE a responsibility to give birth to a child ... the HUGE responsibility is actually a decision to kill it.

J C · 15-02-2018 08:46PM

pilly wrote: »

Hmm, so by your logic each and every one of us is our own human rights decider?

That surely solves all problems. I'll have an abortion if I want, you don't have one if you want.

Simples, no?

Thats what the pro-abortionists claim allright ... to be their own 'god' ... deciding whether they will kill or not, entirely at their own discretion.
... but there is something called objective reality ... and in that reality, killing other Human Beings (except in extremis) isn't either morally or legally acceptable.

Its common decency and civilised behaviour TBH.

Thinking you are your own God ... is as old as time itself ... and always results in disaster for somebody/everybody ... with blame shifting all over the place:-

Genesis 3:4-13 New King James Version (NKJV)
4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings.

8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.

9 Then the Lord God called to Adam and said to him, “Where are you?”

10 So he said, “I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; and I hid myself.”

11 And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”

12 Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

13 And the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments