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

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

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?

Why do you keep (wrongly) using this term? This was a term used for women who chose to have a caeserian section birth over a natural birth.

Women who are "too posh to push" actually give birth and dont have abortions. :rolleyes:

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

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.

"to posh to push is the truth" is it? thats me cinvinced anyway:pac:

Any proof that women have non medically necessary abortions for no other reason than they want an abortion?

You have a very infantile attitude to people who make the decision to have an abortion.Don't think there is too many who come to that decision lightly.

I'm going to pre empt your answer by saying no evidence will be supplied

Delirium

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.

Just because you disagree with a choice, doesn't make it an irresponsible one.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why do you keep (wrongly) using this term? This was a term used for women who chose to have a caeserian section birth over a natural birth.

Women who are "too posh to push" actually give birth and dont have abortions. :rolleyes:

Its all part of a continuum of narccism.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Just because you disagree with a choice, doesn't make it an irresponsible one.

It is irresponsible to have drunken and/or unprotected sex.

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

"to posh to push is the truth" is it? thats me cinvinced anyway:pac:

Any proof that women have non medically necessary abortions for no other reason than they want an abortion?

You have a very infantile attitude to people who make the decision to have an abortion.Don't think there is too many who come to that decision lightly.

I'm quite sure that many don't lightly decide to abort ... but abortion on demand doesn't require any reason or excuse ... so it is entirely possible that some will just abort, on a spur of the moment decision.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One is a living woman aged 30 years ... and the other is a living woman aged 12 weeks.

Neither should be killed.

Abortion is the ultimate in ageism and inequality.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

Its all part of a continuum of narccism.

Nope the term has never been used to describe women who have abortions its ALWAYS been uaed to describe women who have actually given birth.

Keep using it wrongly though, being wrong has never stopped you banging the drum anyway.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

It is irresponsible to have drunken and/or unprotected sex.

Some of the best sex.i have ever had was drunk and unprotected. All of my children were concieved while stone cold aober.

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nope the term has never been used to describe women who have abortions its ALWAYS been uaed to describe women who have actually given birth.

Keep using it wrongly though, being wrong has never stopped you banging the drum anyway.

They are 'too posh to stay pregnant'.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It is irresponsible to have drunken and/or unprotected sex.

As a general statement, no it's not.

I wouldn't consider a long-term monogamous couple to be irresponsible for having unprotected sex, regardless if they had a drink before.

Also..... Have a word with the pope :P

Delirium

J C wrote: »

They are 'too posh to stay pregnant'.

What do you mean by this?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Some of the best sex.i have ever had was drunk and unprotected. All of my children were concieved while stone cold aober.

... fair enough ... but its not advisable ... and if it goes wrong, you will be the author of your own misfortune.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

What do you mean by this?

... what it says.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

As a general statement, no it's not.

I wouldn't consider a long-term monogamous couple to be irresponsible for having unprotected sex, regardless if they had a drink before.

... and this scenario won't generally result in pregnancy ... and if it does, abortion won't/shouldn't be the result.

Delirium wrote: »

Also..... Have a word with the pope :P

You can do that, if you want to.:) Count me out on that one.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... what it says.

Which is why i asked you to elaborate because the meaning isn't clear to me.

Care to elucidate?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

They are 'too posh to stay pregnant'.

Many would actually be too poor to stay pregnant but there you go again trying to make it out that women make these decisions on a whim without any thought:rolleyes:

cmore123

No.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and this scenario won't generally result in pregnancy ... and if it does, abortion won't/shouldn't be the result.

Studies should a substantial proportion of abortions are had by women who don't want any more kids.

It's also funny that you suggest that monogamy reduces the fertility of women.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Which is why i asked you to elaborate because the meaning isn't clear to me.

Care to elucidate?

Its the next step from going through with the pregnancy ... but being 'too posh to push'
... to not going through with the pregnancy at all.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Its the next step from going through with the pregnancy ... but being 'too posh to push'
... to not going through with the pregnancy at all.

I still don't know what you mean by 'too posh to push'. Do you mean that wealthy view having kids as something poor people only do?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Studies should a substantial proportion of abortions are had by women who don't want any more kids.

It's also funny that you suggest that monogamy reduces the fertility of women.

I would assume that somebody in a monogamous relationship would behave responsibly when it comes to sex ... and would ensure that there would be no unwanted pregnancy.
Modern contraception, used correctly, doesn't provide much of an excuse for having an unwanted pregnancy.

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

Its the next step from going through with the pregnancy ... but being 'too posh to push'
... to not going through with the pregnancy at all.

and do you think giving birth is a few deep breaths and a push like on tv?

because there can be serious short term and long term effects on a human body from pregnancy and giving birth

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I would assume that somebody in a monogamous relationship would behave responsibly when it comes to sex ... and would ensure that there would be no unwanted pregnancy.
Modern contraception, used correctly, doesn't provide much of an excuse for having an unwanted pregnancy.

No contraceptive is 100% effective.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

I still don't know what you mean by 'too posh to push'. Do you mean that wealthy view having kids as something poor people only do?

All generalistions are false ... but there is an element of truth to this.

There is a well-established inverse correlation between fertility rates and income.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/december/link-fertility-income

... and abortion rates are directly correlated with income.
Quote:-
"One of the peculiar facts the Brookings Institution pulls out is that the abortion rate is higher for the highest income bracket they looked at, which was 400 percent of the poverty rate. Single women who make $47,000 or more a year abort 32 percent of their pregnancies, whereas single women making $11,670 a year or less abort only 8.6 percent of their pregnancies. Women in the middle abort 11 percent of their pregnancies."

uck51js9zml2yt

J C wrote: »

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?

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.

What part of "and will kill her unborn child, just because she wants to"? is disgusting and horrible?
Are we not being asked to vote for unrestricted abortion to 12 weeks and then leave it with the legislators to decide if that should be increased over time?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

No contraceptive is 100% effective.

... Used properly they are very effective ... some methods more than others.
However, no contraceptive will work, if somebody doesn't use it properly ... or doesn't use it at all.

... and abortion shouldn't be some kind of back-up contraceptive ... because somebody couldn't be bothered to use contraception properly.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... Used properly they are.
However, no contraceptive will work, if somebody doesn't use it properly ... or doesn't use it at all.

... and abortion shouldn't be some kind of back-up contraceptive ... because somebody couldn't be bothered to use contraception properly.

Contraceptives can and do fail for a number of reasons even when used properly.

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

... Used properly they are.

Really?

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/pdf/contraceptive_methods_508.pdf

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception/how-effective-contraception/

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Please drop the tangent about the ban.

Thanks for your attention.