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

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

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?

i wouldn't think so no, at least i'd hope so. however that's not to say that in the future that wouldn't change. as i have said previously in this debate, one voting yes to repeal should think of the long term and all possibilities when voting. simply voting on the basis of the proposals is not in my view, the best idea.

NuMarvel wrote: »

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.

the 8th has provisions to protect the unborn, which is why it is vital it stays until better proposals are put forward that protect both equally, allow for repeal of the 8th, and allow abortions where actually necessary rather then on demand.

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.

that's fair enough, and i would agree with you. however, what we are talking about is in relation to the term human being. in my view people seem to be equating human being with personhood, and suggesting on the basis that they don't believe a fetus is a person, that it's not human being, which isn't accurate. it is a human being.

J C

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?

What if society is happy with zero weeks (with provision for extremis) ... as is currently the case in Ireland ... and may well be the case after the referendum as well?

NuMarvel

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

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

You're oddly obsessed with what to call it. I'd have thought as an anti-repealer, you'd be more concerned that, whatever it's called, it has absolutely no legal protections at this point. But you're not. You're more concerned with nomenclature than rights.

Why is that? If you truly believe that human beings begin from the point of conception, why don't you want the right to life to start at that point too?

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by end of the road
we are going to have a bit of a population crisis in the future yes

pilly
Back up to this statement please?

The current fertility rate is 1.97 in Ireland (and falling). 2.05 is required for population replacement ... Europe and America are dying ... and Ireland is rapidly catching up in the 'culture of death'.

J C

pilly wrote: »

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.

I was talking about women who have been traumatised by rape to the point they are unable to even seek medical assistance ... while you are now talking about women who simply have an unwanted pregnancy and want to abort it on demand, because they want to.
These are two totally different categories of woman.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't think so no, at least i'd hope so. however that's not to say that in the future that wouldn't change. as i have said previously in this debate, one voting yes to repeal should think of the long term and all possibilities when voting. simply voting on the basis of the proposals is not in my view, the best idea.

It's no worse than voting no to repeal no the basis of infanticide or forced abortion.

that's fair enough, and i would agree with you. however, what we are talking about is in relation to the term human being. in my view people seem to be equating human being with personhood, and suggesting on the basis that they don't believe a fetus is a person, that it's not human being, which isn't accurate. it is a human being.

What are the properties of a zygote/embryo that makes you say it is a human being?

And personally speaking, I would consider human being and person to be synonyms.

J C

pilly wrote: »

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

The difference is that you can live on while brain dead ... but you can't live on when your heart is dead.

Brain death is a legal fiction used to protect doctors from a possible murder charge, if they were to remove a persons organs for transplantion without a legal declaration of death already in place. It is also used to allow life support to be withdrawn from a brain dead individual. As can be seen, from this, brain death has only entered the equation with the advent of high tech life support and organ transplantation i.e quite recently.

The definitive definition of death in all cases is the irreversable stopping of the heart ... so it is objectively justifiable to claim that life legally starts when your heart starts.

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

It's no worse than voting no to repeal no the basis of infanticide or forced abortion.

i would have to disagree. voting no on the basis of long term possibilities, prevents those possibilities from coming true.

Delirium wrote: »

What are the properties of a zygote/embryo that makes you say it is a human being?

And personally speaking, I would consider human being and person to be synonyms.

human DNA, and the capacity to develop into a person would be the properties i would use.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

The difference is that you can live on while brain dead ... but you can't live on when your heart is dead.

Brain death is a legal fiction used to protect doctors from a possible murder charge, if they were to remove a persons organs for transplantion without a legal declaration of death already in place. It is also used to allow life support to be withdrawn from a brain dead individual. As can be seen, from this, brain death has only entered the equation with the advent of high tech life support and organ transplantation i.e quite recently.

The definitive definition of death in all cases is the irreversable stopping of the heart ... so it is objectively justifiable to claim that life legally starts when your heart starts.

How? Surely a person is more than just the beating of a heart?

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

the 8th has provisions to protect the unborn, which is why it is vital it stays until better proposals are put forward that protect both equally, allow for repeal of the 8th, and allow abortions where actually necessary rather then on demand.

This is a mess of contradictions. You oppose repeal because it means politicians will be able legislate, but then support repeal so that we can let politicians legislate. You want equal protection for the unborn and the woman (i.e. the current scenario), but to also extend the grounds for access to abortion, which is impossible in the current scenario. Plus the basis of your opposition has changed from fear of going beyond the current proposals to opposition to the current proposals.

It's as simple as this; if you want change, then repeal is the only realistic way it can happen.

If you think the proposed post-repeal legislation goes too far, you're more than welcome to campaign to have it changed. But if you think future governments are going to be like Goldilocks and keep having referendums until they come with the proposal that's just right for you, then you're either in a fairy tale world or not really that much in favour of change in the first place.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree. voting no on the basis of long term possibilities, prevents those possibilities from coming true.

In the short term, yes, long term there's no guarantee. Equally, voting yes does not mean infanticide will be legalised. It's a slippery slope fallacy.

human DNA, and the capacity to develop into a person would be the properties i would use.

You do realise that reads entirely circular to me?

A human being has human DNA and the capacity to develop into a human being/person.

NuMarvel

J C wrote: »

The current fertility rate is 1.97 in Ireland (and falling). 2.05 is required for population replacement ... Europe and America are dying ... and Ireland is rapidly catching up in the 'culture of death'.

Two things jump out at me from that map:

1) Ireland, with an almost absolute ban on abortion, has a similar fertility rate to most of Europe.
2) France, which has similar abortion laws to the ones proposed for Ireland, has the highest fertility rate in Europe.

And when I fig a little deeper, I find that Malta, which has even stricter abortion laws than us, has a fertility rate that's 25% lower than ours.

It's almost as if access to abortion and fertility rates are separate and unrelated matters.

So why are we talking about fertility rates in a thread about access to abortion?

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is a mess of contradictions. You oppose repeal because it means politicians will be able legislate, but then support repeal so that we can let politicians legislate. You want equal protection for the unborn and the woman (i.e. the current scenario), but to also extend the grounds for access to abortion, which is impossible in the current scenario. Plus the basis of your opposition has changed from fear of going beyond the current proposals to opposition to the current proposals.

It's as simple as this; if you want change, then repeal is the only realistic way it can happen.

If you think the proposed post-repeal legislation goes too far, you're more than welcome to campaign to have it changed. But if you think future governments are going to be like Goldilocks and keep having referendums until they come with the proposal that's just right for you, then you're either in a fairy tale world or not really that much in favour of change in the first place.

no, what i what i want is a new constitutional provision that protects the unborn and the mother, and allows for necessary abortions. my reasons for voting no to repeal haven't changed, they are the same as they always were, the current proposals and future proposals. voting repeal isn't going to deliver the change i want, voting no will protect the unborn. i'm not expecting lots of referendums should no be successful, but i am happy to hold out for whatever length it takes to get the change that is good for society, rather then what is proposed which is bad for society.

david75

Voting no won’t Protect anybody. Women will still have abortions in the same numbers. You’re not against them travelling but you don’t want it happening here. Makes no sense.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

It's no worse than voting no to repeal no the basis of infanticide or forced abortion.

What are the properties of a zygote/embryo that makes you say it is a human being?

And personally speaking, I would consider human being and person to be synonyms.

As opposed to say ...calling it an in vitro calf!
It has human x and y chromosomes in its origin as opposed to bovine X and y chromosomes which generally produce cows.

I've 2 kids. I never though they would be anything other than human at birth. Were they something other than human beings at conception? Could they have started the process as something else? Isuppose if evolution is possible then it's possible they were in vitro monkeys:D

But you see, this is the knub of the debate. If we say they are anything other than human beings then it's ok to kill them.
We're not so keen on killing humans as this thread shows.

J C

pilly wrote: »

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

It obviously (biologically and scientifically) does exist, from the moment of fertilisation ... and denying such an objective (and scientificallly verifiable) fact may cause people to think that you may also be in denial over other incontovertible facts.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

As opposed to say ...calling it an in vitro calf!
It has human x and y chromosomes in its origin as opposed to bovine X and y chromosomes which generally produce cows.

I've 2 kids. I never though they would be anything other than human at birth. Were they something other than human beings at conception? Could they have started the process as something else? Isuppose if evolution is possible then it's possible they were in vitro monkeys:D

But you see, this is the knub of the debate. If we say they are anything other than human beings then it's ok to kill them.
We're not so keen on killing humans as this thread shows.

I see you're fond of the smart alek answers when it suits you.

care to answer the question this time?

What are the properties of a zygote/embryo that makes you say it is a human being?

Just to be clear, I'm not asking you what makes the zygote a human zygote. I'm asking what makes it a human being?

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It obviously (biologically and scientifically) does exist, from the moment of fertilisation ... and denying such an objective (and scientificallly verifiable) fact may cause people to think that you may also be in denial over other incontovertible facts.

Then you'll be campaigning to ban the morning after pill since it stops embryos implanting? From your post, that means it the same as having an abortion.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Delirium
What are the properties of a zygote/embryo that makes you say it is a human being?

A Human Being is a being i.e. a living indivdual ... that is Human - fact.
From the moment of fertilisation we are all Human Beings - fact.
From the moment of fertilisation were are all children of our parents - fact.

Very inconvenient facts, if you want to kill us ... because we are smaller than you or dependent on you ... but facts nonetheless.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Voting no won’t Protect anybody. Women will still have abortions in the same numbers. You’re not against them travelling but you don’t want it happening here. Makes no sense.

voting no will uphold the unborn's right to life as much as is practical, and will protect some of the unborn from being killed. it is a vital piece of equality legislation on that score, giving equal right to mother and baby, except where such right conflicts with the mother's right to life.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Then you'll be campaigning to ban the morning after pill since it stops embryos implanting? From your post, that means it the same as having an abortion.

It isn't 'from my point of view' as if it is some subjective thing, that we all can have different POVs on ... it is a fact that Human Beings (biologically and scientifically) exist, from the moment of fertilisation ... and denying such an objective (and scientificallly verified) fact may cause people to think that you may also be in denial over other incontovertible facts.

What import this fact has on the legitimacy of the MAP ... is for society to decide ... but creating 'fake news' by denying obvious and scientifically verifiable facts isn't the way to go IMO.

The pro-aborts are making great play in the media of fact checking what the pro-life people are saying ... and here we have the pro-aborts themselves denying a basic and obvious scientifically verified fact ... that a Human Being comes into existence at the moment of fertilisation.

Here is one FactCheck done on a pro-life leaflet ... and it comes out quite well out of it ... with the worst classification of a claim in the leaflet being an unproven fact and the best being a true fact.
http://www.thejournal.ie/yes-to-life-life-institute-8th-amendment-abortion-leaflet-facts-3058066-Nov2016/

I wonder how the pro-abort claims on this thread would stand up to such a FactCheck ... certainly, the claim that a Human zygote isn't Human ... would get them off to a bad start ... with a 'false' classification, for this particular claim.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

A Human Being is a being i.e. a living indivdual ... that is Human - fact.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Doesn't define what a human being is beyond merely a combination of human DNA.

From the moment of fertilisation we are all Human Beings - fact.

What's your basis for this? Is human DNA all that is required to be classified as a human being? A potential human being from fertilisation, sure. but a fully formed human being from fertilisation, nope.

From the moment of fertilisation were are all children of our parents - fact.

A redundant statement, it's only possible to be children of our biological parents.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It isn't 'from my point of view' as if it is some subjective thing ... its a fact that Human Beings (biologically and scientifically) exist, from the moment of fertilisation ... and denying such an objective (and scientificallly verified) fact may cause people to think that you may also be in denial over other incontovertible facts.

What the import of this has on the legitimacy of the MAP ... is for society to decide ... but creating 'fake news' by denying obvious and scientifically verifiable facts isn't the way to go IMO.
The pro-aborts are making great play of fact checkng what the pro-life people are saying ... and here we have the pro-aborts themselves denying a basic and obvious scientifically verified fact ... that a Human Being comes into existence at the moment of fertilisation.

I don't know what my being pro-choice has to do with what you're saying.

So, once again, why is the MAP acceptable since it meets the criteria for which you deem abortion unacceptable? What's the difference between the two when both end up killing a human being?

david75

So conciousness and awareness take place at the moment of conception?
Literally just as the sperm meets the egg?

Ehhhh no.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I wonder how the pro-abort claims on this thread would stand up to such a FactCheck ... certainly, the claim that a Human zygote isn't Human ... would get them off to a bad start ... with a 'false' classification, for this particular claim.

I've seen posters say it's not a human being. I've yet to see anyone suggest it's not a human embryo/foetus.

Somewhat ironic post about fact-checking there, JC.

pilly

J C wrote:

It obviously (biologically and scientifically) does exist, from the moment of fertilisation ... and denying such an objective (and scientificallly verifiable) fact may cause people to think that you may also be in denial over other incontovertible facts.

And yet you recommend the morning after pill? Hmm.

railer201

J C wrote: »

A Human Being is a being i.e. a living indivdual ... that is Human - fact.
From the moment of fertilisation we are all Human Beings - [B]fact[/B].
From the moment of fertilisation were are all children of our parents - fact.

Very inconvenient facts, if you want to kill us ... because we are smaller than you or dependent on you ... but facts nonetheless.

Prove it to us then ! Anyone can state something is a fact - that doesn't make it one.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Thank you for stating the obvious. Doesn't define what a human being is beyond merely a combination of human DNA.

It does define what a Human Being is ... and we are Human Beings from the moment of fertilisation until our death.
... and if you are in denial of this obvious objective fact ... then here is scientific article on the subject of the Human lifecyle
http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
Quote:-
"The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote."

If you want to justify abortion on demand ... please try and do so ... but don't insult people's intelligence by denying objective facts ... go FactCheck yourselves ... before embarassing yourselves any further.

Delirium wrote: »

What's your basis for this? Is human DNA all that is required to be classified as a human being? A potential human being from fertilisation, sure. but a fully formed human being from fertilisation, nope.

Nobody is saying that a zygote is a 'fully formed Human Being' ... because they obviously aren't ... but neither is a newborn ... or an infant child ... for that matter ... but they are all Human Beings, at different stages of the Human lifecycle - fact.

J C

david75 wrote: »

So conciousness and awareness take place at the moment of conception?
Literally just as the sperm meets the egg?

Ehhhh no.

What has 'consciousness and awareness' to do with our right to life?
If I'm sound asleep, I'm neither conscious nor aware ... but this doesn't give anybody the right to kill me in my bed.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It does define what a Human Being is ... and we are Human Beings from the moment of fertilisation until our death.
... and if you are in denial of this obvious objective fact ... then here is scientific article on the subject of the Human lifecyle
http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html
Quote:-
"The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote."

If you want to justify abortion on demand ... please try and do so ... but don't insult people's intelligence by denying objective facts ... go FactCheck yourselves ... before embarassing yourselves any further.

Your quoted text doesn't say a human being exists from fertilisation. It says the life cycle begins. Haven't disputed that.

Nobody is saying that a zygote is a 'fully formed Human Being' ... because they obviously aren't ... but neither is a newborn ... or an infant child ... for that matter ... but they are all Human Beings, at different stages of the Human lifecycle - fact.

As said above, you haven't provided anything for your "fact" that human beings exist from fertilisation (fully formed or otherwise). The most you've done is show that potentially a human being will result from the fertilisation.

If a zygote is a human being, does that make identical twins (i.e. a zygote that spilt) only a partial human being?