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

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Its pro choice as in the woman has a CHOICE whereas before she had no choice!

she rightly doesn't have a choice to kill her newborn so she doesn't need the choice to kill her unborn unless medical necessity requires it, and rightly she doesn't have that choice within the state as the unborn are human beings who have a right to life, which the state must uphold as much as is practical.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I doubt many who are pro life in this thread support the RCC.
If repealing the 8th and knowingly allowing for the legislation to introduce abortion isn't pro arbortion, what is it?
We know the government are planning on introducing unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks or as Delirium has said , the abortion of a viable foetus.(paraphrased).

Let's not forget that it looks like a human and not an orange but of courses im told it's not a human. though the saying "Walks like a duck, quaks like a duck" springs to mind:)

But do carry on, I'm going to bed!

uptherebels

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I doubt many who are pro life in this thread support the RCC.
If repealing the 8th and knowingly allowing for the legislation to introduce abortion isn't pro arbortion, what is it?
We know the government are planning on introducing unlimited abortion up to 12 weeks or as Delirium has said , the abortion of a viable foetus.(paraphrased).

Let's not forget that it looks like a human and not an orange but of courses im told it's not a human. though the saying "Walks like a duck, quaks like a duck" springs to mind:)

But do carry on, I'm going to bed!

its giving others the right to choose what is best for them, regardless of your own feelings on abortion. That's why it is pro choice;)

Bob_Marley

uptherebels wrote: »

its giving others the right to choose what is best for them, regardless of your own feelings on abortion. That's why it is pro choice;)

So what right or choice is being given to the unborn child whose life is being terminated ?

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

So what right or choice is being given to the unborn child whose life is being terminated ?

How would you propose that would happen?
Do we consult the unborn as to whether they would like a natural or cesearean delivery? Breast or bottle?
Of course we don’t.
We trust the adults responsible to make the best decision.
The same is relevant here.

uck51js9zml2yt

WhiteRoses wrote: »

How would you propose that would happen?
Do we consult the unborn as to whether they would like a natural or cesearean delivery? Breast or bottle?
Of course we don’t.
We trust the adults responsible to make the best decision.
The same is relevant here.

Those decisions are made in the best Interests of the child. Can't say the same for abortion.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

its giving others the right to choose what is best for them, regardless of your own feelings on abortion. That's why it is pro choice

sure, but there are lots of situations where we don't have the right to choose what is best for us. there is nothing to say that this should be different for a woman who wants an abortion on demand.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

How would you propose that would happen?
Do we consult the unborn as to whether they would like a natural or cesearean delivery? Breast or bottle?
Of course we don’t.
We trust the adults responsible to make the best decision.
The same is relevant here.

Killing a defenseless unborn child is now to seen the same as caring for it.
How does someone arrive at that mindset ?

uck51js9zml2yt

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Killing a defenseless unborn child is now to seen the same as caring for it.
How does someone arrive at that mindset ?

The same way they decide a foetus that has human DNA and looks like a human isn't a human... mental gymnastics!

end of the road

i wonder if those who trust the adults responsible to make the best decision in terms of killing the unborn child, believe it should be the same in terms of not killing a newborn or anyone else for that matter? should we remove all the laws in relation to killing children and just trust the adults responsible not to do it? after all, by preventing them from doing it via the law, we aren't trusting them and are women haters, apparently.

Delirium

end of the road wrote: »

i wonder if those who trust the adults responsible to make the best decision in terms of killing the unborn child, believe it should be the same in terms of not killing a newborn or anyone else for that matter? should we remove all the laws in relation to killing children and just trust the adults responsible not to do it? after all, by preventing them from doing it via the law, we aren't trusting them and are women haters, apparently.

Kindly quote any posts advocating late-term abortions before making the leap to infanticide.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park

Delirium wrote: »

Kindly quote any posts advocating late-term abortions before making the leap to infanticide.

What has that got to do with his point?

If we argue that we should just trust people to do the right thing, and that therefore we shouldn't have laws to protect those affected by their actions, then that same logic can be applied to other scenarios.

That point is valid whether we are talking about early-term pregnancies, late-term pregnancies, the survivors of failed abortions who are born alive, or indeed of any child.

Delirium

Nick Park wrote: »

What has that got to do with his point?

If we argue that we should just trust people to do the right thing, and that therefore we shouldn't have laws to protect those affected by their actions, then that same logic can be applied to other scenarios.

That point is valid whether we are talking about early-term pregnancies, late-term pregnancies, the survivors of failed abortions who are born alive, or indeed of any child.

If no posters support late-term abortions, why would they support infanticide?

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nobody has argued that the unborn child has more rights than the mother.

Both have a right to life. In extremely rare circumstances where both lives are in danger, saving the mother's life is prioritised.

So it is totally false to claim that anyone is advocating that an unborn child should have more rights than you.

Maybe you should read up on the concept of derogable and non-derogable human rights? This concept, which is fundamental to understanding human rights, basically identifies key human rights (non-derogable) which cannot be interfered with or undermined even in extreme circumstances (eg the right to life, the right not to be enslaved, the right not to be subjected to torture). Other human rights may, in very rare and extreme circumstances, be temporarily limited.

The 'right' to have an abortion is neither a non-derogable or derogable human right. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to protect the right to life of a child, even if that runs contrary to your wishes.

Many human rights are not absolute. We have the right to free speech, but that does not give you the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Nor do your rights to bodily autonomy and freedom to travel mean you are permitted to drink a bottle of vodka and then drive to work. the right to freedom of religion does not allow you to cut the head off infidels.

If you stop to think about it, you'll realise it makes perfect sense.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

uck51js9zml2yt

Delirium wrote: »

If no posters support late-term abortions, why would they support infanticide?

This thread doesn't account for the wishes or feelings of every person in the country so we've no idea whether some consider this course of action as valid.

uck51js9zml2yt

....... wrote: »

No it isnt because a 12 week fetus is not the equal of a born child, in medicine, law or anywhere else.

No one is advocating late term abortions or infanticide. This is just a scaremongering tactic.

Posters like EOTR want you to think that abortion is the same as grabbing a 5 year old child off the street and bashing its head in while cackling like a maniac. It isnt.

It's not so long ago that unlimited abortion to 12 weeks wouldn't have been considered but it is now

Nick Park

Delirium wrote: »

If no posters support late-term abortions, why would they support infanticide?

I'm not aware that anyone was accused of supporting infanticide.

The point was that the 'logic' of just trusting women to do the right thing, thereby making legislation unnecessary, can equally be applied to other actions such as killing infants. I don't think that point is too difficult to grasp?

Of course we are having this discussion in the context of a thread that is discussing unlimited abortion. Also, we have been discussing how to vote in a forthcoming referendum, a referendum which (if we are to believe Leo Varadkar) is not going to mention any distinction between early or late term abortions

.......

This post has been deleted.

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

This thread doesn't account for the wishes or feelings of every person in the country so we've no idea whether some consider this course of action as valid.

Right, because EOTR was posing the question to people who don't post on boards :rolleyes:

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You really need to concentrate on your own words that you post. I was responding to your post in which you claimed the following:

I really dont see why it matters if you consider it human or a person or what?

So you have already told us that you don't actually care whether it is a child or not. You want your 'rights' to be enforced over the rights of the unborn child - and you have told us that you don't care whether it is a human being or a person.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't know why any woman would want to kill her child. Born or unborn. But sometimes they do.

Perhaps you could post a link to this - as far as I am aware the recommendation is for 12 weeks unrestricted abortions, not late term.

I have seen no indication anywhere that the question in the Referendum will mention 12-weeks. All indications, based on Varadkar's words, is that the Referendum will propose to repeal the Eighth Amendment and give the Oireachtas the power to legislate whatever it chooses about abortion.

http://www.thejournal.ie/repeal-referendum-date-varadkar-3822918-Jan2018/

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cabinet-agrees-to-repeal-8th-and-replace-wording-466475.html

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly. You see your bodily autonomy as more important than a child's rights. So why quibble about whether it is a 'child' or not, since you don't care?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Delirium

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not aware that anyone was accused of supporting infanticide.

The point was that the 'logic' of just trusting women to do the right thing, thereby making legislation unnecessary, can equally be applied to other actions such as killing infants. I don't think that point is too difficult to grasp?

My bad. So who's suggesting that laws are unnecessary when it comes to abortion?

Of course we are having this discussion in the context of a thread that is discussing unlimited abortion. Also, we have been discussing how to vote in a forthcoming referendum, a referendum which (if we are to believe Leo Varadkar) is not going to mention any distinction between early or late term abortions

Which make sense as it's a vote to repeal or not.

Legislation happens after repeal (if successful).

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is what I said. :rolleyes:

However, I was referring to the recommendation that the Oireachtas legislates for unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks.

And I was not. I was pointing out to Delerium that the thread is about how a Christian can vote. We will not be asked to vote on the 12-week option. Therefore I was (quite obviously) referring to what we will be asked to vote upon in a Referendum.

Can you link to where Leo is in favour of late term abortions as you claimed or is that just another scaremongering tactic not based in fact at all?

If you don't want to pay attention to what you post yourself, then at least please do read what others post before responding to them.

I never once said that Leo is in favour of late-term abortions. Anyone who says I inferred any such thing would be lying.

What I said was that he wants us to vote for a measure that will give the Oireachtas (not just this one, but every future government) the power to pass whatever legislation it wants about abortion. By definition, that means giving the Oireachtas the power to legislate for late-term abortions.