Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C · 18-02-2018 03:49PM

pilly wrote: »

And yet you recommend the morning after pill? Hmm.

I'm certainly not recommending the MAP ... it comes with all kinds of side-effects and medical warnings ... because it is a very powerful hormonal drug ... but it is a standard treatment nowadays for women who have been raped ... and indeed all women who wish to avail of it.
... and this is another thing that has been allowed under the 8th ... and for which the repeal of the 8th isn't required.

The morality of using the MAP is somewhat 'grey' because a pregnancy hasn't definitively started ... but it will prevent one starting ... in that regard it is nothing different to the abortifcient effect of the ordinary contraceptive pill ... of which it is a more powerful version.

This is considerably less serious morally than deliberately killing an unborn child that is known to exist ... and to already have implanted.

david75 · 18-02-2018 03:59PM

J C wrote: »

I'm certainly not recommending the MAP ... it comes with all kinds of side-effects and medical warnings ... because it is a very powerful hormonal drug ... but it is a standard treatment nowadays for women who have been raped ... and indeed all women who wish to avail of it.
... and this is another thing that has been allowed under the 8th ... and for which the repeal of the 8th isn't required.

The morality of using the MAP is somewhat 'grey' because a pregnancy hasn't definitively started ... but it will prevent one starting ... in that regard it is nothing different to the abortifcient effect of the ordinary contraceptive pill ... of which it is a more powerful version.

This is considerably less serious morally than deliberately killing an unborn child that is known to exist ... and to already have implanted.

A foetus isn’t a child. Neither is a zygote. These are facts. Facts you seek to be impervious to

J C · 18-02-2018 04:03PM

Delirium wrote: »

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

Please stop playing semantic games ... its doing your argument no favours.
If the Human lifecycle begins at fertilisation ... then all Human Beings also begin at fertilisation ... and they are Human Beings from that point onwards.

Please have the courage of your convictions to campaign honestly for abortion ... and stop denying the obvious and objective Humanity of the unborn children you wish to kill.
... and when you are at it, please stop saying that you are not pro-abortion only pro-the choice of abortion ... when you are actively campaigning to introduce abortion. Such obvious misgivings about abortion ... and total double-think, will also make the undecided turn away from any arguments that you may make.

I may not still agree with you but at least I can respect you, if you honestly say what you mean and mean what you say ... instead of squirming your way to demanding abortion while denying the fact of what abortion entails ... the deliberate killing of a Human unborn child in the womb.
I have no difficulty in stating that I support the killing of an unborn child when continuing with the pregnancy represents a serious threat to the mothers life ... even though this will involve the (regrettable) killing of an unborn Human Being.

... just like I have no difficulty with Law Enforcement killing an adult Human Being who is presenting a direct threat to a woman's life ... and there is no other practical course of action to save the woman.

Can you not be equally frank about your position, instead of cowardly hiding behind semantics and double-think.

Delirium wrote: »

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?

Now you are into more semantics ... there is obviously one Human Being when the Zygote is formed ... and two Human Beings when it splits.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 04:17PM

J C wrote: »

Pleas stop playing with semantic games ... If the Human lifecycle begins at fertilisation ... then all Human Beings also begin at fertilisation ... and they are Human Beings from that point onwards.

It's not semantics, words have meaning.

Must fertilisation happen for a human being to exist? Yes.

Does a human being exist at fertilisation? Depending on the definition, it may or may not. Your definition requires no more than a zygote to be deemed a human being (which are afforded no protection from MAP). Whereas I view a zygote as something that will develop into a human being over the course of the pregnancy.

You've provided nothing to say either of us have a bullet-proof position on what is or isn't a human being.

Please have the courage of your convictions to campaign honestly for abortion ... and stop denying the obvious and objective Humanity of the unborn children you wish to kill.

I'm not a doctor or a woman, so abortion will never be an issue for me directly. I've never been shy about my position on abortion so I'm not sure why you're feigning ignorance on it other than a sad attempt at point scoring.

I may not still agree with you but at least I will respect you for saying what you mean and meaning what you say ... instead of squirming your way to demanding abortion while denying the fact of what abortion entails ... the deliberate killing of a Human unborn child in the womb.

I'm not squirming. You're ignoring my stated position and misrepresenting.
In the early stages of the pregnancy, a human being doesn't yet exist. You've yet to prove otherwise.

I have no difficulty in stating that I support the killing of an unborn child when continuing with the pregnancy represents a serious threat to the mothers life ... even though this will involve the (regrettable) killing of an unborn Human Being

... just like I have no difficulty with Law Enforcement killing an adult Human Being who is presenting a direct threat to a woman's life ... and there is no other practical course of action to save the woman.

And I'm not going to criticize you for that. It would be wrong to let both the woman and unborn die.

Now you are into more semantics ... there is one Human Being when the Zygote is formed ... and two Human Beings when it splits.

Have you anything to prove a zygote is a human being?

J C · 18-02-2018 04:19PM

david75 wrote: »

A foetus isn’t a child. Neither is a zygote. These are facts. Facts you seek to be impervious to

A foetus and a zygote is a child of its biological parents ... at different stages of development, as a Human Being.

Why this eternal focus on semantics? ... and the denial of the obvious? ... its like you are in denial of the evil that procured abortion is ... and you are tring to distance yourself from it ... while campaigning for it?

... that explains it allright.

david75 · 18-02-2018 04:22PM

J C wrote: »

A foetus and a zygote is a child of its biological parents ... at different stages of development, as a Human Being.

Why this eternal focus on semantics? ... and the denial of the obvious? ... its like you are in denial of the evil that procured abortion is ... and you are tring to distance yourself from it ... while campaigning for it?

... that explains it allright.

Have you anything to prove a zygote is a human being?

J C · 18-02-2018 04:22PM

Delirium wrote: »

It's not semantics, words have meaning.

Must fertilisation happen for a human being to exist? Yes.

Does a human being exist at fertilisation? Depending on the definition, it may or may not. Your definition requires no more than a zygote to be deemed a human being (which are afforded no protection from MAP). Whereas I view a zygote as something that will develop into a human being over the course of the pregnancy.

You've provided nothing to say either of us have a bullet-proof position on what is or isn't a human being.

I'll ask you what I have asked David ... and indeed what could be asked of nearly every 'pro-choice pro-abort'.
Why this eternal focus on semantics? ... and the denial of the obvious? ... its like you are in denial of the evil that procured abortion is ... and you are trying to distance yourself from it ... while campaigning for it?

... that explains it allright IMO.

david75 · 18-02-2018 04:29PM

J C wrote: »

I'll ask you what I have asked David ... and indeed what could be asked of nearly every 'pro-choice pro-abort'.
Why this eternal focus on semantics? ... and the denial of the obvious? ... its like you are in denial of the evil that procured abortion is ... and you are trying to distance yourself from it ... while campaigning for it?

... that explains it allright IMO.

It’s not semantics. You’re repeatedly stating as fact that a zygote is an unborn child. That’s demonstrably wrong. You’re repeatedly stating that and you’re simply being asked to back it up with some evidence.
You can’t keep saying FACT and not backing it up with no evidence whatsoever.

Wishing it so and shouting it so doesn’t make it so. Another actual FACT you seem to be impervious to.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 04:30PM

J C wrote: »

I'll ask you what I have asked David ... and indeed what could be asked of nearly every 'pro-choice pro-abort'.
Why this eternal focus on semantics? ... and the denial of the obvious? ... its like you are in denial of the evil that procured abortion is ... and you are trying to distance yourself from it ... while campaigning for it?

... that explains it allright IMO.

I'm not distancing myself from anything, you're projecting/ascribing things to me to suit your argument.

You say a zygote is a human being, yet you don't see using MAP as killing a person. It lacks consistently to your statements.

I've stated that I'm okay with abort on request up to 12 weeks. I've also stated that at about 22-23 weeks a human being exists and as such don't support abortion on request at that stage or later.

end of the road · 18-02-2018 04:31PM

david75 wrote: »

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

Ehhhh no.

just as well it's irrelevant then as nobody has mentioned that it. still doesn't change the reality that it is a human being which will develop into a person.

david75 wrote: »

A foetus isn’t a child. Neither is a zygote. These are facts. Facts you seek to be impervious to

a fetus becomes a child long before birth, this is a fact.

J C · 18-02-2018 04:32PM

david75 wrote: »

Have you anything to prove a zygote is a human being?

I have nothing to prove that you are a Human Being, if you want to engage in semantics about it.
I could say that anybody who has so little empathy with unborn Human Beings as want to kill them with impunity lacks the humanity to be called a Human Being ... but this would be just playing with words.
If it were to be enshrined in law this could allow us to remove the humanity from an obvious Human being ... thereby conveniently removing all of their rights ... so that society can do what they please, with them ... with full legal immunity.

... I almost forgot, that is how abortion is legalised, actually.

It's happened before in every concentration camp in the world ... the rights of one group of vulnerable Humans were removed by another group of stronger Humans ... with terrible and deeply unjust results, in most cases.

david75 · 18-02-2018 04:37PM

Oh here we go with the concentration camps and eugenics

pro life lingo bingo is a go!

J C · 18-02-2018 04:44PM

Delirium wrote: »

I'm not distancing myself from anything, you're projecting/ascribing things to me to suit your argument.

You say a zygote is a human being, yet you don't see using MAP as killing a person. It lacks consistently to your statements.

I've stated that I'm okay with abort on request up to 12 weeks. I've also stated that at about 22-23 weeks a human being exists and as such don't support abortion on request at that stage or later.

If you're not distancing yourself from abortion ... then come out and just say that you are in favour of killing unborn children, in all of their obvious Humanity by abortion.

Like I have said, I can respect your honesty, if not your ideas, if you do that.

Please stop hiding behind semantics and the denial of the obvious ... and what is objectively verifiable.

It's like the people who recoil in horror at pictures of aborted babies ... and then hypocritically criticise the people who showed them the pictures ... and not the people who aborted these unborn children, in the first place ... who are the cause and creators of these pictures of horror. A classical 'blaming of the messenger for the message'.

Its yet another way of going into denial and distancing themselves from what that they support.

david75 · 18-02-2018 04:46PM

The vast majority of voters in Ireland support repealing the eighth.
That’s a fact.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 04:54PM

J C wrote: »

If you're not distancing yourself from abortion ... then come out and just say that you are in favour of killing unborn children, in all of their obvious Humanity by abortion.

Like I have said, I can respect your honesty, if not your ideas, if you do that.

I'm not going to lie to placate you or anyone else. I don't consider a zygote a human being, it's a potential human being. I also give priority to an actual human being, the pregnant woman, over the zygote/early stage foetus.

I don't know why you continue to misrepresent me as hiding my position. I would appreciate some honesty from yourself in that regard.

Please stop hiding behind semantics and the denial of the obvious ... and what is objectively verifiable.

Feel free to provide evidence to that claim.

It's like the people who recoil in horror at pictures of aborted babies ... and then hypocritically criticise the people who showed them the pictures ... and not the people who aborted these unborn children, in the first place ... who are the cause and creators of these pictures of horror. A classical 'blaming of the messenger for the message'.

Its yet another way of going into denial and distancing themselves from what that they support.

Is that the metric now? If you can stomach the graphic images of a procedure, then it can be legal? Seems a silly way to decide medical policy.

end of the road · 18-02-2018 04:55PM

david75 wrote: »

The vast majority of voters in Ireland support repealing the eighth.
That’s a fact.

it's not a fact unless the vote for repeal is passed via the referendum. until then, it's just wishful thinking with no basis in reality. so, wrong again.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 04:58PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a fact unless the vote for repeal is passed via the referendum. until then, it's just wishful thinking with no basis in reality. so, wrong again.

While I would agree it's never a good idea to presume the result of any vote, polls indicate that it would be repealed.

The result will be the ultimate proof, but it's wrong to say there's no basis for stating that a majority support repeal.

J C · 18-02-2018 04:59PM

david75 wrote: »

Oh here we go with the concentration camps and eugenics pro life lingo bingo is a go!

There is a very strong link between Eugenics and abortion down the years.
Quote:-
"Margaret Sanger offered up birth control as a means of advancing eugenics. “Eugenics without birth control seemed to me to be a house built upon the sands,” she wrote.
Margaret Sanger, Margaret Sanger (New York: W. W. Norton & Co. Inc), 374. Accessed January 26, 2017 from https://lifedynamics.com/library/#birth-control-review.

Quote:-
"Sanger described directly and succinctly the theoretical impact of birth control on the eugenics movement: “Birth control...is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, or preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives.”
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/11/27/margaret-sanger-was-eugenicist-why-are-we-still-celebrating-her

Eugenics principles are also present today in English abortion law, which allows abortion without time limit, where "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped."

I wouldn't go there, if I were pro-abortion TBH.

You will only lose even more people to your cause.

david75 · 18-02-2018 05:00PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a fact unless the vote for repeal is passed via the referendum. until then, it's just wishful thinking with no basis in reality. so, wrong again.

Polls aren’t wishful thinking. All polls indicate it will be passed. Not concrete but not to be ignored.
‘Wrong again’. Try harder.

J C · 18-02-2018 05:07PM

Delirium wrote: »

Is that the metric now? If you can stomach the graphic images of a procedure, then it can be legal? Seems a silly way to decide medical policy.

They are not graphic images of the procedure ... they are graphic images of the result of the procedure ... the mangled and bloodied arms, legs, head and torsos put it beyond all doubt that it was a tiny Human Being that was killed ... and therefore the images must be condemned as 'disgusting', if you are to continue in denial of what abortion actually is ... the killing of tiny vulnerable Human Beings.

Anyway, are you going to stop hiding behind semantics ... and come out and honestly put your arguments for the abortion of unborn children, in all of their obvious Humanity?

Is this 12 week old unborn child not objectively Human? ... and it is proposed to abort unborn children, just like this, if the 8th is repealed.

J C · 18-02-2018 05:17PM

david75 wrote: »

Polls aren’t wishful thinking. All polls indicate it will be passed. Not concrete but not to be ignored.
‘Wrong again’. Try harder.

TBH there one poll and one poll only that counts ... and that will be the referendum poll.

All I'll say about opinion polls is that they got it spectaculary wrong on Trump and Brexit ... and the 8th is shaping up the same way!!!
... with a lot of stuff going on 'under the radar' ... that the elites are blissfully unaware of.

The pro-life movement have had little or no access to the MSM to date.
Discussions on the 8th have largely revolved around 'experts' discussing various 'technical' aspects of conducting campaigns in general and the 8th in particular. All very 'safe' stuff ... but of no interest to and with even less real infomation on abortion for the general public.

People aren't stupid ... and they won't be patronised with such obvious ruses ... that avoid the arguments for both sides.
Having heard the arguments from both sides on this thread, I can see why the pro-aborts will try and avoid any direct debate with pro-lifers at all costs ... because the pro-borts have nothing to say except 'its a ball of cells that is a womans right to kill'.

The Pro-lifers would demolish these arguments in the first minute of the debate ... leaving the pro-aborts without a leg to stand on ... poetic justice, when you see dismebered unborn children with their little legs torn off in abortions.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 05:22PM

J C wrote: »

They are not graphic images of the procedure ... they are graphic images of the result of the procedure ... the mangled and bloodied arms, legs, head and torsos put it beyond all doubt that it was a tiny Human baby that was killed ... and therefore the images must be condemned as 'disgusting', if you are to continue in denial of what abortion actually is ... the killing of tiny vulnerable Human Beings.

Apologies, JC, I thought you were referring to complaints made about graphic images that have been appearing in cities around the country (as well as one that appeared on this thread).

Anyway, are you going to stop hiding behind semantics ... and come out and honestly put your arguments for the abortion of unborn children, in all of their obvious Humanity?

I haven't been hiding. It's now deliberately dishonest at this stage. I would ask you as another poster to kindly reflect on this as it is tedious to see the same mistruth parroted repeatedly.

Is this 12 week old unborn child not objectively Human? ... and it is proposed to abort unborn children, just like this, if the 8th is repealed.

Please cite one post I have ever posted where I stated that a foetus was not a human foetus? Or that it would not over the course of the pregnancy develop attributes that are clearly human?

12 weeks is the limit that I personally find acceptable for abortion on request.

A brain dead patient is still physically human, doesn't mean a human being resides within the body any more.

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-02-2018 05:22PM

Delirium wrote: »

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?

It has human DNA as opposed to orange DNA.

david75 · 18-02-2018 05:30PM

J C wrote: »

TBH there one poll and one poll only that counts ... and that will be the referendum poll.

All I'll say about opinion polls is that the got it spectaculary wrong on Trump and Brexit ... and the 8th is shaping up the same way!!!
... with a lot of stuff going on 'under the radar' ... that elites are blissfully unaware of.

The pro-life movement have had little or no access to the MSM to date.
Discussions on the 8th have largely revolved around 'experts' discussing various 'technical' aspects of conducting campaigns in general and the 8th in particular. All very 'safe' stuff ... but of no interest to and with even less real infomation on abortion for the general public.

People aren't stupid ... and they won't be patronised with such obvious ruses.

We didn’t vote on brexit or trump. You know that tough right?
Hazard a guess you supported both though.
As to your clairvoyance, can you back it up with facts that’s its ‘ going the same way? ‘

Elites?? <snip> are you on about now??

Delirium · 18-02-2018 05:32PM

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

It has human DNA as opposed to orange DNA.

So does sperm yet it's not regarded as a human being.

Delirium · 18-02-2018 05:36PM

J C wrote: »

The pro-life movement have had little or no access to the MSM to date.
Discussions on the 8th have largely revolved around 'experts' discussing various 'technical' aspects of conducting campaigns in general and the 8th in particular. All very 'safe' stuff ... but of no interest to and with even less real infomation on abortion for the general public.

People aren't stupid ... and they won't be patronised with such obvious ruses.

You are joking right? It's quite common for Iona or a priest to be on current affairs programmes to argue the pro-life side.

Not to mention Iona have regular columns in national newspapers.

J C · 18-02-2018 05:48PM

Delirium wrote: »

You are joking right? It's quite common for Iona or a priest to be on current affairs programmes to argue the pro-life side.

Not to mention Iona have regular columns in national newspapers.

David Quinn has a regular opinion piece in the Irish Independent, I think ... which he uses to talk about all kinds of things ... and not just the 8th.

Apart from this token Iona/Roman Catholic column, I have not seen or heard any debate about the 8th on any media.
The objective seems to be to avoid debate at all costs ... for the nominal reason of avoiding conflict and controversy ... to which I'm tempted to say, 'since when did that stop them, before'?

By having any debate, both sides will have to have equal time ... but with no debate, 'experts' can gently hint or tell a story or two that says abortion might be the way to go ... without any balancing POV being required ... because 'it wasn't a debate don't you know' ... and no arguments were proffered!!

They think they have it all 'wrapped up' ... and any debate can only result in losses for the pro-abort side ... and that is why they are avoiding any debate like the plague.
This may actually be the 'rock' the repeal of 8th actually perishes on ... so I would encourge them to keep doing exactly what they are doing !!!

uck51js9zml2yt · 18-02-2018 05:49PM

Delirium wrote: »

So does sperm yet it's not regarded as a human being.

Now you're being disingenuous.
We're not talking about aborting sperm.

So to you...are you ok with killing humans just because they're not wanted?

we now know that youre happy to abort a human foetus at 12 weeks. At what point would you be unhappy to do so.?

J C · 18-02-2018 05:56PM

Delirium wrote: »

So does sperm yet it's not regarded as a human being.

Delerium ... its now got to the point where I'm beginning to feel your pain !!!

Introducing non sequiturs and strawmanning arguments doesn't do your credibility any good whatsoever.

Nobody is saying that a Human sperm is a Human Being ... otherwise I couldn't pay the child maintenace, if every one of my sperm turned out to be a Human Being.:)

Delerium, I just had to smile there ... otherwise I'd have cried ... when I look and see that this is the best that the pro-abortion proponents can come up with as an argument to repeal the 8th.

latest?cb=20150416231521

david75 · 18-02-2018 05:58PM

J C wrote: »

David Quinn has a regular opinion piece in the Irish Independent, I think ... which he uses to talk about all kinds of things ... and not just the 8th.

Apart from this token Iona/Roman Catholic column, I have not seen or heard any debate about the 8th on any media.
The objective seems to avoid debate at all costs ... for the nominal reason of avoiding conflict and controversy ... to which I'm tempted to say, 'since when did that stop them'?
They think they have it all 'wrapped up' ... and any debate can only result in losses for the pro-abort side ... and that is why they are avoiding any debate like the plague.
This may actually be the rock the repeal of 8th actually perishes on ... so I would encourge them to keep doing exactly what they are doing !!!

Given the amount of time and vast amounts of posts in this thread I don’t see how you’d have time for much of anything else. An observation not an insult.
But you’re not paying attention as self appointed Catholic mouthpieces appear frequently and regularly on tv radio and in print on this issue.
Breda O Brien weekly and unchallenged in the Irish Times. David Quinn under every stone you can overturn.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments