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

Bredabe

J C wrote: »

Please don't be so patronising about intelligent adult women !!!

If somebody is physically assaulted ... of which rape is the most serious manifestation ... everybody knows enough to seek medical help and report it to the Gardai.
The medical professionals and the Gardai will take it from there.

NO, you are incorrect there, while some women know about EC, plenty of young women do NOT. I know this to be true. Some youngsters would not go to the guards no matter what happened to them, and others who are say raped at home would be on the receiving end of more violence if they reported it. Given the news coming out of NI, why would youngsters report rape and be violated like all over again?

Not only are some women ignorant of the existence of EC, some don't know what constitutes rape.

I would ask you what you expect the guards and medical personnel to do when the survivor will not report or is too brainwashed/lacking in knowledge to access EC. Ask around, bet you will find some women/girls(it's not only grown women who are raped) who have all kinds of misinformation about EC assuming they know it exists at all. But I only dipped into this thread to see if there were any new views emerging.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It isn’t more important than the wants and needs of the woman carrying it.

... nobody is saying that it is more important than it's mother.
... just that it shouldn't be killed ... pretty basic stuff, when you think about it.

uck51js9zml2yt

J C wrote: »

... nobody is saying that it is more important than it's mother.
... just that it shouldn't be killed ... pretty basic stuff, when you think about it.

But it's not a "human being".....I've still no idea what it's supposed to be though!

J C

Bredabe wrote: »

NO, you are incorrect there, while some women know about EC, plenty of young women do NOT. I know this to be true. Some youngsters would not go to the guards no matter what happened to them, and others who are say raped at home would be on the receiving end of more violence if they reported it. Given the news coming out of NI, why would youngsters report rape and be violated like all over again?

Not only are some women ignorant of the existence of EC, some don't know what constitutes rape.

I would ask you what you expect the guards and medical personnel to do when the survivor will not report or is too brainwashed/lacking in knowledge to access EC. Ask around, bet you will find some women/girls(it's not only grown women who are raped) who have all kinds of misinformation about EC assuming they know it exists at all. But I only dipped into this thread to see if there were any new views emerging.

I'd have thought that younger women would, if anything, have more knowledge on these issues, given all of the sex ed programmes they have gone through at school.

J C

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

But it's not a "human being".....I've still no idea what it's supposed to be though!

Of course it's a Human Being.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

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

It's very easy to be pro-abortion, when you're not the one at risk of being killed.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

It's very easy to be pro-abortion, when you're not the one at risk of being killed.

It’s very easy to be pro life when you’re not the one left holding the baby.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It’s very easy to be pro life when you’re not the one left holding the baby.

Does holding a baby give you the right to kill it?

J C

Here is a good scientific question for the pro-abortion people.

If you are pronounced dead, when your heart stops ... shouldn't you be pronounced alive ... when your heart starts?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It's very easy to be pro-abortion, when you're not the one at risk of being killed.

Women die due to complications from childbirth/ pregnancy. It's because of that risk of them being killed that I support their right to choose. Hence why I'm pro-choice.

You just happen to give greater priority to the foetus over the woman.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Does holding a baby give you the right to kill it?

I don’t see it as killing a baby. It’s terminating a pregnancy.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don’t see it as killing a baby. It’s terminating a pregnancy.

Whatever eupheism you use ... its killing a Human Being.

uck51js9zml2yt

J C wrote: »

Of course it's a Human Being.

I know that and you know that but those who advocate abortion as a right seem to differ... but they won't tell me what it's supposed to be and how we're wrong in our understanding of biology and how the human genome works!

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

Whatever eupheism you use ... its killing a Human Being.

Whatever euphemism you use, you are denying women bodily autonomy, potentially putting their lives in danger, interfereing in the private healthcare of another person, and treating females as second class citizens,

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Here is a good scientific question for the pro-abortion people

If you are pronounced dead, when your heart stops ... shouldn't you be pronounced alive ... when your heart starts?

I hope you'll accept a reply from pro-choice posters to the question.

What about someone declared brain-dead? The heart can in theory beat for decades after.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that a person doesn't require a brain to exist from a scientific perspective.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

I'd have thought that younger women would, if anything, have more knowledge on these issues, given all of the sex ed programmes they have gone through at school.

You are categorically wrong. Just because you feel that is how they should act, doesn’t mean they will. And it doesn’t make it ok to dismiss their experiences or belittle what happened to them.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Women die due to complications from childbirth/ pregnancy. It's because of that risk of them being killed that I support their right to choose. Hence why I'm pro-choice.

You just happen to give greater priority to the foetus over the woman.

You don't need abortion on demand to look after women whose lives are seriously threatened by their pregnancy ... the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 does this ... and the 8th doesn't prevent this.

... and of course, I give priority to the woman, if her life is at risk ... whereas you want to give the unborn no rights at all.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

Women die due to complications from childbirth/ pregnancy. It's because of that risk of them being killed that I support their right to choose. Hence why I'm pro-choice.

You just happen to give greater priority to the foetus over the woman.

So if the womans life is at risk at 39 weeks gestation then you support her right to kill the "whatever it is".?

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

There is a doctor on call service for anybody who doesn't wish to go to the family doctor ... and if a woman has indeed been raped I think she would go to any doctor, to be treated properly.! Indeed her friends would equally ensure that she received all appropriate medical treatment.

IF she told anyone about it!

SusieBlue

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

So if the womans life is at risk at 39 weeks gestation then you support her right to kill the "whatever it is".?

No of course not, a pregnancy that has progressed that far is obviously a wanted one, a c-section would be performed and the child would be delivered a week early.
Happens all the time with conditions such as pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You don't need abortion on demand to look after women whose lives are seriously threatened by their pregnancy ... the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 does this ... and the 8th doesn't prevent this.

... and of course, I give priority to the woman, if her life is at risk ... whereas you want to give the unborn no rights at all.

Yes, I'm aware your position requires the woman to have her life in jeopardy before she can avail of an abortion.

Whereas I see no reason to put women through that. If they don't accept the risks then they can the abortion.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

I hope you'll accept a reply from pro-choice posters to the question.

What about someone declared brain-dead? The heart can in theory beat for decades after.

It doesn't make sense to suggest that a person doesn't require a brain to exist from a scientific perspective.

You are correct that somebody can live on when they are brain dead ... but they can't live on when their heart stops ... and that is why the irreversible stopping of the heart is the definitive definition of death.

The legal definition of death is still the stopping of the heart ... not the death of the brain. That is what a doctor does when he pronounces somebody as dead ... s/he determines that the heart has irreversibly stopped ...
... and that is why I'm asking, if you are pronounced legally dead, when your heart stops ... shouldn't you be pronounced legally alive ... when your heart starts?

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

So if the womans life is at risk at 39 weeks gestation then you support her right to kill the "whatever it is".?

Why would "whatever it is" (your words) have to be killed?

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

IF she told anyone about it!

If she tells nobody about it, then nothing can or will be done about it.
... but why would she do that ?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware your position requires the woman to have her life in jeopardy before she can avail of an abortion.

Whereas I see no reason to put women through that. If they don't accept the risks then they can the abortion.

In most cases there is little or no risks.

I think that it was Ronald Regan who said "I find that all of the people who are pro-abortion, have already been born".

Delirium

J C wrote: »

That is a separate issue to the Heart.

The legal definition of death is still the stopping of the heart ... not the death of the brain. That is what a doctor does when he pronounces somebody as dead ... s/he determines that the heart isn't beating
... and that is why I'm asking, if you are legally pronounced dead, when your heart stops ... shouldn't you be legally pronounced alive ... when your heart starts?

While I don't accept your suggestion that brain-dead isn't legally recognized as dead, my own answer would be no.

Legally alive at the minimum would have to disqualify from the category of brain dead.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

The legal definition of death is still the stopping of the heart ...

Citation for this "legal definition" please.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

In most cases there is little or no risks.

I think that it was Ronald Regan who said "I find that all of the people who are pro-abortion, have already been born".

That is not for you to judge. Even the most straightforward of pregnancies come with risks.

It’s highly patronizing for you, as a man, to be passing comments about pregnancy bearing little to no risk when you yourself will never be pregnant and have to face them.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

Why would "whatever it is" (your words) have to be killed?

My words because it was said in this thread that it's not a human being. No one has told me what it is?
I still think the fetus is a human being but "obviously" I'm wrong... obviously:D

It's so much easier to kill something rather than someone!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

In most cases there is little or no risks.

There's more risk to the woman than if she takes an abortion pill. It should be up to her if it's a risk she's willing to take rather than forcing her to.