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

Nick Park

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park wrote:

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?

...... wrote: »

No - nowhere did I state that.

Why so disingenuous?

I give up.

There is no point trying to engage with someone who cannot be honest and stand over their own words.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park

Delirium wrote: »

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

Everyone who uses the slogan 'Trust women' in order to argue against laws that restrict abortion.

We do not use the phrase 'Trust parents' to argue that parents should be exempt from child abuse laws. We should not use a similar phrase to argue that women should be exempt from laws to protect the unborn child.

As for the sly insinuation that those who wish to retain legislation to protect unborn children are somehow distrustful of women - that is contemptible.

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

Legislation happens after repeal (if successful).

It makes sense if we are willing to hand politicians a blank cheque on the issue of abortion. And that will be the crux of this Referendum. It's not about trusting women. It's not about trusting doctors. It's about trusting politicians.

But we don't hand politicians a blank cheque (or, more accurately, an entire book of blank cheques) on many other issues. That was why, for example, we voted in the Children's Referendum to enshrine certain rights in the Constitution that politicians could not take away even if they wanted to. (It was notable that Barnardo's - in promoting the Children's referendum - specifically referred to the eighth Amendment and it's protection of a specific group of people as justification for us enshrining the protection of children in the Constitution)

I am making no smug predictions about what the Referendum result will be. But I am interested to see whether the Irish people will trust politicians (with their horse trading for office and rapidly evolving principles) in such a way.

david75

Nick Park wrote: »

Everyone who uses the slogan 'Trust women' in order to argue against laws that restrict abortion.

We do not use the phrase 'Trust parents' to argue that parents should be exempt from child abuse laws. We should not use a similar phrase to argue that women should be exempt from laws to protect the unborn child.

As for the sly insinuation that those who wish to retain legislation to protect unborn children are somehow distrustful of women - that is contemptible.

It makes sense if we are willing to hand politicians a blank cheque on the issue of abortion. And that will be the crux of this Referendum. It's not about trusting women. It's not about trusting doctors. It's about trusting politicians.

But we don't hand politicians a blank cheque (or, more accurately, an entire book of blank cheques) on many other issues. That was why, for example, we voted in the Children's Referendum to enshrine certain rights in the Constitution that politicians could not take away even if they wanted to. (It was notable that Barnardo's - in promoting the Children's referendum - specifically referred to the eighth Amendment and it's protection of a specific group of people as justification for us enshrining the protection of children in the Constitution)

I am making no smug predictions about what the Referendum result will be. But I am interested to see whether the Irish people will trust politicians (with their horse trading for office and rapidly evolving principles) in such a way.

If I’m reading your view right, you’re afraid of what future governments and legislation might do. Meaning there’s nothing stopping them making even more drastic changes down the line.

First of all thats complete whatabouttery and scare mongering that rings hollow and nobody with even half a brain and who is paying attention to all his will fall for. At all. Only maybe the most vulnerable voters meaning the elderly. (Who are easily lead, and being mislead down this path by the Plc it would seem.)

Secondly are you new in ireland? Nothing major is ever changed. ever. And major changes rarely tabled. Change of any kind is glacially slow on almost every issue but on such an important issue why would any TD / govt or oireachtas commit career suicide by opening up this can of worms *again*.

Lastly, are you paying attention to this debate at all? Nobody is calling for abortion on demand and at any stage up to 39 weeks. Nobody is.

The only people I see even mentioning it at all is yourself and the PLC.
So what’s up with that?

end of the road

Delirium wrote: »

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

we are told by some pro-choice across a number of platforms that we have to trust women to make the decisian in relation to having an abortion, and that by legally preventing them from having abortions that means we don't trust them. i'm therefore wondering why shouldn't that be extended going on those people's logic, if we don't trust them by preventing them from having an abortion, then surely we don't trust them given we have other laws preventing us all from doing what we like to other human beings, which will include women being unable to kill the unborn after a time limit, or killing the born?
the only argument we get as to why not is "sentients" but as many of us have established that isn't valid as a judge as we don't implement human rights based on sentients, and even if we were to, it would be a very very small part of the process. we also have established that by having laws preventing us from harming other human beings, which include women, it does not mean that we don't trust women.

david75 wrote: »

If I’m reading your view right, you’re afraid of what future governments and legislation might do. Meaning there’s nothing stopping them making even more drastic changes down the line.

First of all thats complete whatabouttery and scare mongering that rings hollow and nobody with even half a brain and who is paying attention to all his will fall for. At all. Only maybe the most vulnerable voters meaning the elderly. (Who are easily lead, and being mislead down this path by the Plc it would seem.)

Secondly are you new in ireland? Nothing major is ever changes ever. And major changes rarely tabled. Change of any kind is glacially slow on almost every issue but on such an important issue why would any TD / govt or oireachtas commit career suicide by opening up this can of worms *again*.

Lastly, are you paying attention to this debate at all? Nobody is calling for abortion on demand and at any stage up to 39 weeks. Nobody is.

The only people I see even mentioning it at all is yourself and the PLC.
So what’s up with that?

it's not scaremongering but simply thinking of the long term. some people will pay attention to this as they understand that it's not just about the aftermath should a repeal be successful but the long term possibilities. people are calling for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, that is still abortion on demand as people are able to avail of it without reason.

pilly

Nick Park wrote:

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

And if someone is gone that far no law in the land will stop them so not sure what the argument is?

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i would consider abortion on demand to be just as horrible an act as bashing the head in of a 5 year old. i'm not one bit ashamed to hold that view, as both the 5 year old and the 12 week fetus are human beings and have an equal right to life.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you can't choose to get rid of it in this country at least. it's not your choice to kill the unborn in ireland. the rights of the unborn to live come before your bodily autonomy unless medical necessity requires otherwise. everyone's bodily autonomy is restricted to an extent for the greater good of society and there is no reason why this shouldn't be the case in terms of the unborn.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

preventing her from killing the unborn outside medical necessity, even if it is barbaric, it would never be as barbaric as abortion on demand.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the 12 week old fetus only has an equal right to life as the mother, it does not have more rights. in fact, the mother has more of a right to life as her life will be saved at the expence of the fetus should there be a medical issue. whether the unborn is or isn't sentient means nothing as we don't decide rights based on sentients.

Nick Park

pilly wrote: »

And if someone is gone that far no law in the land will stop them so not sure what the argument is?

The argument, as I've already stated twice, is that trusting a group of people does not exempt them from legislation. Therefore saying, "let's just trust them" is no argument against legislation.

As for the fact that people will break the law anyway, no-one in their right mind would see that as a coherent reason to scrap laws.

smacl

Nick Park wrote: »

It's not about trusting women. It's not about trusting doctors. It's about trusting politicians.

If the last couple of referendums are anything to go by, the one supposed moral authority that has certainly lost the people's trust is the clergy. For all the many faults you may lay at the feet of our politicians, at least they can claim a democratic mandate. IMHO, our politicians tend to say what they think the electorate want to hear, first and foremost.

end of the road

pilly wrote: »

And if someone is gone that far no law in the land will stop them so not sure what the argument is?

it may not stop them, but it does insure the act is treated as an unacceptible act by the state, and it does insure that there is some fear that the criminal penalty may be enforced, even if it isn't. we don't scrap laws because people break them, because in most cases that just isn't viable or good for society. there are a couple of cases where the opposite applies, but abortion isn't one of them.

Nick Park

smacl wrote: »

If the last couple of referendums are anything to go by, the one supposed moral authority that has certainly lost the people's trust is the clergy. For all the many faults you may lay at the feet of our politicians, at least they can claim a democratic mandate. IMHO, our politicians tend to say what they think the electorate want to hear, first and foremost.

I'd be very interested to hear your arguments as to how the Referenda on reducing the minimum age of the President, or abolishing the Seanad, represent an endorsement of politicians' powers or express any view on the clergy at all.

Much as some might like this to be a referendum on the clergy, it is not.

Btw, I would heartily support any referendum that sought to remove the privileged role of religion in Irish society - but sadly such a vote is not an option at the moment

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bob_Marley

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

A fetus is an unborn child and a human life. Even Varadkar has corrected people on that. And in addition to the article below, you can listen to the recent interview with him on RTE radio, where he says when talking about abortion, a fetus and unborn child are the one and the same.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/dont-use-foetus-when-you-mean-baby-varadkar-35234768.html

So you can use the term fetus all day long, but no one is going to be fooled that it's not a human life / unborn child. You're disguising nothing.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

No. I said i wouldn't interact due to your posts.

You subsequently misrepresent a post of mine again to suggest I said something about you I didn't.

You can either quote the post or apologise.

You're speaking in riddles ... please show where I misrepresented your post.

recedite

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nobody said that, and the Irish constitution would not allow it anyway.

J C

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;)

What is best for me isn't always best for others ... and when it isn't ... there ends my right to choose what is best for me. Nobody should be killed because they are merely 'inconvenient'.

Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr has captured the tragedy of abortion in America ... and her words apply equally to Ireland, if we repeal the 8th and introduce this barbarism:-
Quote:-
"We have been fueled by the fire of “women’s rights,” so long that we have become deaf to the outcry of the real victims whose rights are being trampled upon, the babies and the mothers. . . .
What about the rights of each baby who is artificially breached before coming to term in his or her mother’s womb, only to have her skull punctured, and feel, yes agonizingly “feel” the life run out of her before she takes her first breath of freedom. What about the rights of these women who have been called to pioneer the new frontiers of the new millennium only to have their lives snuffed out before the calendar even turns?

Oh, God, what would Martin Luther King, Jr., who dreamed of having his children judged by the content of their characters do if he’d lived to see the contents of thousands of children’s skulls emptied into the bottomless caverns of the abortionists pits?

It is time for America, perhaps the most blessed nation on earth to lead the world in repentance, and in restoration of life! . . . Abortion is at the forefront of our destruction."

... and Abraham Lincoln said that "No law can give me the right to do what is wrong."

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can we stop trying to make out that a foetus isn't a Human Being.
Here is the definition of fetus :-
"The embryo of a mammal in the later stages of development, when it shows all the main recognizable features of the mature animal, esp a human embryo from the end of the second month of pregnancy until birth. "
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fetus

... so there is no practical difference in the Humanity of an 8 week old fetus and a newborn child (or indeed an adult) ... yet it is proposed to immediately start killing 12 week old unborn children, if the 8th is repealed.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

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

It doesn't matter that no posters here support late abortions ... it is proposed that abortion will be available on demand up to 12 weeks ... and later for specified reasons ... that are conveniently not specified yet.
For example, 48% of The Citizens Assembly said that 'later' could be without time limit for an unborn child who has a significant foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth.
... and this is the precise position of English abortion law.

52% of The Citizens Assembly, for example, said that 'later' could be without time limit for situations of serious risk to the health of the woman ... which again is the position of English abortion law.

... so a reality check would say that the repeal of the 8th will be rapidly followed with the introduction of abortion law in Ireland that will be equivalent to English abortion law ... and the 12 weeks weeks, horrific and all as it is ... is only the beginning.

https://www.citizensassembly.ie/en/The-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-on-the-Eighth-Amendment-of-the-Constitution/Final-Report-incl-Appendix-A-D.pdf

pilly

J C wrote:

... so a reality check would say that the repeal of the 8th will be rapidly followed with the introduction of abortion law in Ireland that will be equivalent to English abortion law.

Again, you know typing something in bold doesn't make it a fact don't You?

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If that is your position, you you should be much more careful about what you let in there ... instead of expecting everyone to allow you to 'get rid of' the results, as you euphemistically call it.

....... wrote: »

I dont care if its a child, a tumour or a puppy. Nothing that it is is more important than my bodily autonomy.

... so you think that a child, a tumour and a puppy are equivalent ... the people of Ireland need to bear in mind the people who are demanding abortion and expecting them to sign the metaphorical death warrants for these innocent little angels, by voting for the repeal of the 8th.

I will say this though, your position is at least honest ... you don't mince your words ... and you say what you mean ... and obviously mean what you say ... unlike others who 'dance around' trying to deny the obvious humanity of the unborn child ... so that they can delude themselves that they're not actually voting to kill a Human Being.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

If that is your position, you you should be much more careful about what you let in there ... instead of expecting everyone to allow you to 'get rid of' your irresponsible 'mistakes' ... by killing them

... so a child, a tumour and a puppy are equivalent in your mind ... the people of Ireland need to bear in mind that it is people like you who are demanding abortion and expecting them to damn themselves to sign the death warrants for these innocent little angels.

Your first paragraph once again speaks volumes of your compempt, disdain, lack of respect and distrust of women. You aren’t even trying to hide it any more. It’s clear for all to see.

Spare me with your ‘innocent little angels’ rubbish.

You can go on and on as much as you like, nothing on this earth qualifies you to interfere in my healthcare and in my bodily autonomy. Very soon our constitution will be changed to reflect that.

Then you’ll have to find something else to preach about and interfere in. What next??

J C

pilly wrote: »

Again, you know typing something in bold doesn't make it a fact don't You?

I never said it is a fact ... just a well founded prediction based on the 'road map' provided by the Citizens Assembly ... for the convergence of Irish abortion law with English abortion law.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Your first paragraph once again speaks volumes of your compempt, disdain, lack of respect and distrust of women. You aren’t even trying to hide it any more. It’s clear for all to see.

I have nothing but sympathy for women who are hurt by abortion ... but I don't have the same empathy for those who urge them on to kill their unborn children on the basis of 'my uterus, my choice' or some other equally selfish assertion.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Spare me with your ‘innocent little angels’ rubbish.

That is what they are ... innocent little angels destined for the right hand of God ... and they're certainly not tumours or dogs, like they have so disparagingly been described on this thread.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You can go on and on as much as you like, nothing on this earth qualifies you to interfere in my healthcare and in my bodily autonomy. Very soon our constitution will be changed to reflect that.

I wouldn't bet on that.
... and I don't think that society should limit your bodily autonomy ... until you start using it to kill others.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Then you’ll have to find something else to preach about and interfere in. What next??

Extending the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ to women hurt by abortion.

david75

J C wrote: »

I have nothing but sympathy for women who are hurt by abortion ... but I don't have the same empathy for those who urge them on to kill their unborn children on the basis of 'my uterus, my choice what stays in there' or some other equally outrageous assertion.

That is what they are ... innocent little angels destined for the right hand of God ... and they're certainly not tumours or dogs, like they have so disparagingly been described on this thread.

I wouldn't bet on that.
... and I don't think that society should limit your bodily autonomy ... until you start using it to kill others.

Extending the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ to women hurt by abortion.

They don’t need the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

They need access to appropriate medical care in their own country and doctors need their hands untied to provide it.

You can keep the love and forgiveness. It’s up to Jesus to hand that out, not you or I.

J C

david75 wrote: »

They don’t need the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ.

They do actually ... the love and forgiveness of Jesus Christ is the only way to stop their hurt for doing such an irreversible thing.

No Human Being can undo the damage done ... and only Jesus Christ can forgive it.

Matthew 11:28-30 King James Version (KJV)
28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

david75 wrote: »

They need access to appropriate medical care in their own country and doctors need their hands untied to provide it.

Women and their unborn children need access to the best medical care possible ... but doctors don't need their hands untied to kill one of them, just because the woman decides that she wants to 'evict' her unborn child.
Tenants will have more rights of occupation than unborn children, if the 8th is repealed ... and tenants don't die, if they are evicted.

david75 wrote: »

You can keep the love and forgiveness. It’s up to Jesus to hand that out, not you or I.

Christians are Jesus Christ's representatives on Earth ... so we are fully authorised by Him to hand out His love and forgiveness ... to all who ask for it.

Quote :-
'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.' (God).

.......

This post has been deleted.

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In the same way that your right to life trumps any other person 'right' to use their bodily autonomy to kill you.