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

J C

Delirium wrote: »

You do understand what the term "brain dead" means?

I only ask as I'm not aware of any medical or scientific test that would confirm a zygote is alive by the standard we decide if someone is/ isn't brain dead.

Personally, I would have thought that the absence of even the beginnings of a brain form would be a massive fail right there. But maybe you can educate me otherwise.

There is no issue with measuring brain activity ... when the legal definition of being alive is to have a heart beat.
... and to be legally dead is to not have a heart beart.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

You do understand what the term "brain dead" means?

I only ask as I'm not aware of any medical or scientific test that would confirm a zygote is alive by the standard we decide if someone is/ isn't brain dead.

Personally, I would have thought that the absence of even the beginnings of a brain form would be a massive fail right there. But maybe you can educate me otherwise.

The primary legal definition of death is the irreversible stopping of the heart ... brain death is only a secondary definition ... used where there is catastrophic brain damage ... or where organ donation is happening.

It is a very good legal question, if you are legally pronounced dead, when your heart stops beating ... shouldn't you be legally pronounced alive ... when your heart starts beating?
The answer is obvious ... that you should be legally pronounced alive ... when your heart starts beating, which is 3 weeks after fertilisation.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

What's to stop abortion up to 12 weeks becoming abortion whenever you want? It's up to 24 weeks in Greece or forced abortions at 8 months in China!

You cited 39 weeks in your scenario but have failed to explain why an early delivery wouldn't take place?

And for the umpteenth time, I have never once voiced support for the notion of forced abortions. Not at 8 seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks or months in the pregnancy.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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

well at least there is a living breathing baby and a living breathing mother. with abortion, the baby is killed.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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

factually however it's killing an unborn human being. even if you don't see it that way, that's the actual reality.

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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!

because they can't. they know they can't argue against reality. so they have to resort to the dehumanization tactic. it's a tactic that has always worked for societies in the past, when they removed rights from people who those societies deemed to be lesser, so it's not surprising it's tried.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

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,

everyone of us have our bodily autonomy restricted in some way, that's just life. nobody is interfering in the private health care of another person, just preventing them from killing the unborn within the state. females are not being treated as second class citizens by being prevented from killing the unborn, however if the 8th is repealed, the unborn will become 8th class citizens for a time, which will slowly increase as time goes on.

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

Baseline car crash crazy in this thread.

Throwing out biblical quotes when it suits them, but ignoring them as it applies to themselves.

David, you said it wasn't a human being...what is it ? None of the pro choice advocates seem to want to provide an answer. Perhaps you will since you initially said it?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

I do believe that's brain dead right there.

It is ... so what is your point?

J C

Delirium wrote: »

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.

It should be up to her to make the decision on whether to risk becoming pregnant or not ... once she becomes pregnant, there are two lives involved ... and she needs to responsibly follow through, with what she has started, barring some situation of extremis arising.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

you didn't answer my question. Why would a pregnancy that's at 39 weeks require the child/foetus/<insert preferred term here> to be killed?

Why not just deliver and treat the woman?

What's to stop abortion up to 12 weeks becoming abortion whenever you want? It's up to 24 weeks in Greece or forced abortions at 8 months in China!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

http://leaving-well.org/legal-definition-of-death.php

"Definition of death. An individual is dead if the individual has sustained either: irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or. irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem."

in practice, the irreversible stopping of the Heart is the normal way a doctor pronounces a person as dead.

Brain function is normally only assessed, where that is an issue in a particular case and/or where organs are being donated for transplantation ... and the heart has to be allowed continue beating right up to the momant the organs are harvested, thereby killing the patient.

I do believe that's brain dead right there.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... except an unborn child, from the moment of conception isn't brain dead ... or dead at all ... its very much alive.

We need to remember that pregnancy is temporary ... but abortion is permanent.

You do understand what the term "brain dead" means?

I only ask as I'm not aware of any medical or scientific test that would confirm a zygote is alive by the standard we decide if someone is/ isn't brain dead.

Personally, I would have thought that the absence of even the beginnings of a brain form would be a massive fail right there. But maybe you can educate me otherwise.

J C

NuMarvel wrote: »

Citation for this "legal definition" please.

http://leaving-well.org/legal-definition-of-death.php

"Definition of death. An individual is dead if the individual has sustained either: irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions; or. irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem."

in practice, the irreversible stopping of the Heart is the normal way a doctor pronounces a person as dead.

Brain function is normally only assessed, where that is an issue in a particular case and/or where organs are being donated for transplantation ... and the heart has to be allowed continue beating right up to the momant the organs are harvested, thereby killing the patient. in this case the patient is proonounced dead on the basis of lack of brain activity ... to legally protect the doctors who then kill the patient, by removing the organs.

There is no ethical issue with any of this BTW.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

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.

... except an unborn child, from the moment of conception isn't brain dead ... or dead at all ... its very much alive.

We need to remember that pregnancy is temporary ... but abortion is permanent.

david75

Baseline car crash crazy in this thread.

Throwing out biblical quotes when it suits them, but ignoring them as it applies to themselves.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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!

you didn't answer my question. Why would a pregnancy that's at 39 weeks require the child/foetus/<insert preferred term here> to be killed?

Why not just deliver and treat the woman?

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.

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!

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.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

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

Citation for this "legal definition" please.

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.

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".

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 ?

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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".?

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.

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.

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.