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

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

So if society one days says 35 weeks or kill them just as they're being born , that's ok with you?

No. I've already stated no multiple times to that.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Because a person can be brain dead, i.e. legally dead, and still their heart beats.

This definition was only introduced to facilitate organ donation ... which has nothing to do with the normal legal definition of death and life.

Delirium wrote: »

You also contend that a zygote is legally alive. The absence of both a heart and a brain would say otherwise.

You could say that it may not be legally alive ... but it certainly is biologically alive.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

And what about all the testimonials from women who say it was right for them?

They certainly can't say it was right for their unborn child.
Abortion hurts many of the women who have them ... and kills unborn children

... its a brutal permanent solution to a temporary, often non-existent, problem.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

No. I've already stated no multiple times to that.

But you said, it's whatever society imposes.
Why is one timeline ok and the other not? What if society says it's ok at 35 weeks?
What happens then?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

This definition was only introduced to facilitate organ donation ... which has nothing to do with the normal legal definition of death and life.

You could say that it may not be legally alive ... but it certainly is biologically alive.

Finally, progress. So we at least accept the possibility that legally alive does not apply from conception.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

But you said, it's whatever society imposes.
Why is one timeline ok and the other not? What if society says it's ok at 35 weeks?
What happens then?

This is a bizarre line of questioning considering we're in a thread about an abortion referendum.

Society passed the 8th. I don't agree with it and will exercise my democratic right to vote to repeal it.

Equally, I will oppose any moves to allow abortions in request up to birth. Or forced abortions. Or infanticide.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

This is a bizarre line of questioning considering we're in a thread about an abortion referendum.

Society passed the 8th. I don't agree with it and will exercise my democratic right to vote to repeal it.

Equally, I will oppose any moves to allow abortions in request up to birth. Or forced abortions. Or infanticide.

You have one chance and one chance only to oppose any moves to allow abortions up to birth for stated reasons ... or up to 12 weeks on demand ... and that is to vote to retain the 8th.

Voting for repeal is also a vote for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and as far as the politicians (or the courts) may decide after that.

It would be totally naive to claim or believe otherwise.

Schorpio

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Well leaving aside the irony of you judging Christians, while saying people shouldn't judge, what Christ was actually referring to was not judging people, but actions. Actions such as deliberately taking someone's life, can certainly be judged.

Or, In other words, unlike what you've just posted, attacking the post instead of the posters.

You see this is my point. I was not judging, or attacking anyone. But the fact that you perceive my post as such highlights the inherent divide in this thread. There is zero-open mindedness here. Opinions are only given, not changed.

Also - to pick up your point about actions - I've always understood that to be personal actions. Things you do through your own actions to live a good life. I've never understood it as the imposition onto others as to how you think/feel they should act.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Finally, progress. So we at least accept the possibility that legally alive does not apply from conception.

Like you have said ... a heart beat may not be the legal definition of alive either ... and we may therefore be back to the moment of fertilisation as the legal (and biological) definition of when life starts.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

This is a bizarre line of questioning considering we're in a thread about an abortion referendum.

Society passed the 8th. I don't agree with it and will exercise my democratic right to vote to repeal it.

Equally, I will oppose any moves to allow abortions in request up to birth. Or forced abortions. Or infanticide.

There's nothing bizzare about it. Once passed, the legislature can impose any timeframe they want and you will have allowed them do it...now that's bizzare!

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

It took our politicians 30 years to legislate just for the woman's right to life in the 8th. And it took a Supreme Court case, two referendums, and a case to the ECHR for them to do that.

If there's one thing we can trust politicians with, it's being very slow to change abortion laws.

sure, but it's not viable to leave that to chance. this isn't a power the politicians should have, given it involves life or death of a human being.

Delirium wrote: »

Only those that society imposes.

which could be right up to birth if society deems so. your only chance to stop that potential is via voting no to repeal.

Delirium wrote: »

And what about all the testimonials from women who say it was right for them?

in my opinion whether it was right for them or not isn't relevant to me, they were wrong to kill the unborn unless it was out of medical necessity.

pilly

end of the road wrote:

we are going to have a bit of a population crisis in the future yes

Back up to this statement please?

pilly

J C wrote:

How does a woman who is supposedly 'afraid' to tell her doctor that she was raped ... and get proper medical treatment for the rape ... suddenly pluck up the courage to go and have an abortion ... which is orders of magnitude more difficult than ringing a doctor and getting ordinary medical treatment.

Hahahahahahahaha. That is the most hilarious statement you've made yet.

According to you women have abortions JUST BECAUSE. Now all of a sudden it's difficult?

You're tying yourself up in so many knots it's a joy to watch.

pilly

J C wrote:

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

Plenty of "humans" are pronounced dead whilst their heart still beats.

pilly

J C wrote:

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

So you believe a child exists from the MOMENT of conception?

pilly

J C wrote:

"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."

That's all we need to know.

So it's not ONLY when the heart stops is it?

pilly

J C wrote:

How does the definition of death cause any problems with my argument that life legally begins (and ends) with a heartbeat?

Because you're wrong. Simple.

gallifreya

Wow. The recent posts displaying not only ignorance but a total lack of empathy and promoting misconceptions about rape victims were upsetting to read. The post where the MAP supposedly eliminates the risk of pregnancy is just spreading misinformation.

Seems evident that some under the banner of the pro-life movement, have a visceral contempt for women. You only have to look at the last 10 or so pages of this thread to see the thinly veiled loathing of women imagined to be selfish, irresponsible and promiscuous.

Such posts show the discomfort with women’s sexuality, freedoms, unmarried status and non-procreatively proscribed lives. These judgments about abortion have morphed into moral judgments about a woman’s sexual conduct and how women should think and behave in a crisis pregnancy rather than on the moral status of the unborn foetus. After all - it is much easier to promote an ideology of restricting abortion morally rather than by expressing a deep seated aversion to women and wanting to control their reproductive choices.

gallifreya

J C wrote: »

How does the definition of death cause any problems with my argument that life legally begins (and ends) with a heartbeat?

How about transposing heartbeat with breath. Isn't there something about the breath of life in the scriptures? "God made man out of the clay of the earth and into his nostrils blew the breath of life, and so, man became a living being."

If you accept that life is breath and without breath there is no "living being" then from the perspective of "personhood" a person exists with the first breath and ends with the last. That argument could be made spiritually and legally also.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's interesting that so far no pro abortionist will answer the "what is it if not a human being "question or the fact that the politicians will have the legal right to abort up to the point of birth if it's passed.

Instead it's just personal attacks and smart Alex answers.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You have one chance and one chance only to oppose any moves to allow abortions up to birth for stated reasons ... or up to 12 weeks on demand ... and that is to vote to retain the 8th.

Voting for repeal is also a vote for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks ... and as far as the politicians (or the courts) may decide after that.

It would be totally naive to claim or believe otherwise.

Nonsense. Previous governments wouldn't allow a vote on the 8th for decades. But through every growing campaigning/marches, pro-choice people have managed to get it put to the vote now.

Politicians are accountable the electorate. There are many things that can currently be proposed as laws, e.g. there's no constitutional amendment stating that marriage requires a minimum age. Yet it ain't legal to marry a 6 year old. But your argument would suggest that it should already be as the constitution doesn't stop it.

I'm getting the distinct aroma of hyperbole.

J C wrote: »

Like you have said ... a heart beat may not be the legal definition of alive either ... and we may therefore be back to the moment of fertilisation as the legal (and biological) definition of when life starts.

I have never said that but I'll put that down the late hour you posted.

I said that legally dead allow for two tests to pronounce a person dead, no heartbeat or brain dead. I subsequently said that you would need a heartbeat and brain to be legally alive.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

There's nothing bizzare about it. Once passed, the legislature can impose any timeframe they want and you will have allowed them do it...now that's bizzare!

The point, that clearly went soarly over your head was, through democracy it's decided what to allow.

Do you honestly contend that there is a large scale support for infanticide in Ireland? Enough so that it would pressure the government to legalise it?

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

which could be right up to birth if society deems so. your only chance to stop that potential is via voting no to repeal.

Nonsense. There's nothing to stop repeal happening in 100 years.

So unless you're suggesting that constitution should never be modified ever again should repeal fail to get the votes, then your post is looking quite silly.

in my opinion whether it was right for them or not isn't relevant to me, they were wrong to kill the unborn unless it was out of medical necessity.

Yes, I'm aware you don't support abortion and could care less that women view it as the right choice for them.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

It's interesting that so far no pro abortionist will answer the "what is it if not a human being "question or the fact that the politicians will have the legal right to abort up to the point of birth if it's passed.

Instead it's just personal attacks and smart Alex answers.

That's quite unfair. I've addressed your questions honestly and that's what I get as thanks? Why would anyone take the time to answer you if you're so dismissive of replies?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

sure, but it's not viable to leave that to chance. this isn't a power the politicians should have, given it involves life or death of a human being.

This is a power politicians have in nearly every other country in the world. I see no rational basis for believing future Irish politicians will be chomping at the bit to radically alter our abortion laws from what's recommended. What's more, we were perfectly happy to let our politicians have this power up until 1983. And the only reason that changed was because of scaremongering about what judges might do if the laws were challenged in court.

As I've said before, the odds of a future government radically changing our laws are slim, and even if they did, those laws could be overturned. On the other hand, what's certain is that a No vote will maintain the status quo which is a constitutional provision which helps neither women or the unborn, which isn't fit for purpose and never can be.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

That's quite unfair. I've addressed your questions honestly and that's what I get as thanks? Why would anyone take the time to answer you if you're so dismissive of replies?

Who said I was referring to you?
But the fact is a statement was made by David and at no point has he or any pro choice person chose to explain it.
Instead it's being neatly ignored and deflected by those who choose to quote my question

railer201

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Who said I was referring to you?
But the fact is a statement was made by David and at no point has he or any pro choice person chose to explain it.
Instead it's being neatly ignored and deflected by those who choose to quote my question

Pro-lifers constantly tell us it is a human being from the moment of conception. I'd say not for the following reason - when you take off the top of your boiled egg in the morning and note that fertilisation has taken place due to the visible tiny red mark, and you continue eating it, would you consider you had eaten an egg or a chicken ?

So there you are, someone has attempted to answer you.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Who said I was referring to you?
But the fact is a statement was made by David and at no point has he or any pro choice person chose to explain it.
Instead it's being neatly ignored and deflected by those who choose to quote my question

I've said numerous times that I don't believe a person exists from fertilization. That a person comes into existence later into the pregnancy.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

I've said numerous times that I don't believe a person exists from fertilization. That a person comes into existence later into the pregnancy.

So an X human chromosome joins a human chromosome and you get .....?
A)a chicken

something that can be killed for no reason at all
C) human cells that are developing and have a recognisable heart beat
at 5-6 weeks and looks like a minute human not long afterwards but which some say isn't a human.

I'm still confused ..it's it looks like a human being and is not a human being what is it? I suggest it's not an orange but I could be wrong:)

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

So an X human chromosome joins a human chromosome and you get .....?
A)a chicken
something that can be killed for no reason at all
C) human cells that are developing and have a recognisable heart beat
at 5-6 weeks and looks like a minute human not long afterwards but which some say isn't a human.

I'm still confused ..it's it looks like a human being and is not a human being what is it? I suggest it's not an orange but I could be wrong:)

It's a zygote that will develop into a human being. It's a potential human being for part of the pregnancy.

Since the lack of a brain is no barrier to qualifying as a human being, what is it that is required from your POV to describe a human being? Is it merely having human DNA?