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

david75

splinter65 wrote: »

Your post to me. I’ve asked you for clarification on my post count in this thread several times but you’ve been dodging it.
Now you feign ignorance?

That post wasn’t to you.

It was to JC

Weird that this comes up now.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

My definition of a bully is shouting at and shaming a woman into doing something against her own body or wellbeing.

EOTR is a repetitive nonsensical bore that thinks it knows better than women themselves.

It makes for poor discussion and undermines totally any valid opinion from a pro life point of view.

Deflating and destroying those nonsensical points from such a person is all too easy but best ignored.

I’ve reported your bullying post and I’m reporting this one for back seat modding.
Just because you can’t deal with a debate doesn’t give you the right to decide who can and cannot post.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

That post wasn’t to you.

It was to JC

Weird that this comes up now.

It was to me. Why would I even notice. You’ve lost control of yourself .

david75

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ve reported your bullying post and I’m reporting this one for back seat modding.
Just because you can’t deal with a debate doesn’t give you the right to decide who can and cannot post.

Go for it. I don’t remember you posting in this thread at all under that name.
Let’s see how that goes.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

Go for it. I don’t remember you posting in this thread at all under that name.
Let’s see how that goes.

Indeed...

david75

Yet somehow dictating to a woman what she does with her body isn’t bullying

Odd that. .

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

Yet somehow dictating to a woman what she does with her body isn’t bullying

Odd that. .

If it were her body it would be bullying, it’s the baby’s body that gets snuffed.

gallifreya

J C wrote: »

Here is an actual miscarried 12 week old unborn child:-

Warning graphic image of a dead unborn child

https://www.humpath.com/IMG/jpg_fetus_12w_formalin_12_2.jpg

... and it is anatomically identical to this image:-

Note what is absent from these cartoon pics?
Making a case for the humanity of the foetus by removing the pregnant woman from the picture entirely...

Nick Park

david75 wrote: »

I’m actually not.
Above depicts catholics flying away with other people’s money and rights

I'm not sure how a cartoonish depiction of Catholics doing anything is relevant to a non-Catholic pointing out your confusion between Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.

Since you insist that you aren't confusing Mormons and JW's perhaps you could give some sources for this extraordinary claim about people dying because Mormons supposedly oppose blood transfusions?

Btw, I am certainly not a Mormon, but I know that many Mormon churches organise blood donor drives. Also, the current President of the Mormon Church is a former heart surgeon who could not have done his pioneering work in that field without using blood transfusions on his patients.He was part of the team that developed the heart-lung machine that in 1951 supported the first ever human open-heart surgery using mechanical takeover of heart and lungs.

pilly

david75 wrote:

Nobody even reads your posts anymore least of all me. Start talking sense and we might.

Just put on ignore as I have done. Saves even having to scroll past the drivel.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

david75 infracted for ignoring previous mod warning about their language about Christian beliefs/Christianity.

Timberrrrr and JC yellow-carded for linking to graphic images of aborted foetus. That's now three posters that have been carded in a week for posting either graphic images directly on thread or linking to them. Next poster will be get a ban for their troubles.

uck51js9zml2yt

splinter65 wrote: »

Your post to me. I’ve asked you for clarification on my post count in this thread several times but you’ve been dodging it.
Now you feign ignorance?

I've been asking him what a foetus is if not human for a week. I'm still waiting:D

splinter65

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

I've been asking him what a foetus is if not human for a week. I'm still waiting:D

I think he’s been admonished. A very angry and sad person I think. There’s a lot of it about. Seems to be par for the course when you banish Jesus from your life.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Please keep personal comments out of the discussion.

Thanks for your attention.

J C

gallifreya wrote: »

Note what is absent from these cartoon pics?
Making a case for the humanity of the foetus by removing the pregnant woman from the picture entirely...

Please stop calling these anatomically correct images from a US government medical agency ... a 'cartoon'.
We are not allowed (nor do we particulary want) to post actual pictures of 12 week old unborn children.

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

exactly the same apart from the seperated fingers and toes, better developed facial features, lack of translucent skin and the fact it was made to look like its sucking its thumb.

Why not use the actual image from now on?

The Mods don't allow it ... because they consider them too graphic ... myself and Timbrrr were carded for posting links to actual photos.
I actually happen to agree with the Mods on this ... there is no need for graphic photos ... when we have access to accurate CGI images that aren't graphic.

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

until their conscience gets in the way you mean.;)
then your happy to let them chose what is best for themselves at the expense of others

What do you mean 'the expense of others'?
If you are saying that they should kill unwanted unborn children ... doing so would actually be at the expense of the said children.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

The Mods don't allow it ... because they consider them too graphic ... myself and Timbrrr were carded for posting links to actual photos.
I actually happen to agree with the Mods on this ... there is no need for graphic photos ... when we have access to accurate CGI images that aren't graphic.

Except your cartoons are neither accurate nor anatomically correct

Your cartoons show an alleged 12 week old fetus with eyelids, fully formed ears and finger/toe separation whereas the correct (if somewhat disturbing) picture shows a different thing altogether.

Stop claiming your cartoons are "anatomically correct" when they are not.

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

The Mods don't allow it ... because they consider them too graphic ... myself and Timbrrr were carded for posting links to actual photos.
I actually happen to agree with the Mods on this ... there is no need for graphic photos ... when we have access to accurate CGI images that aren't graphic.

there is no reason answering now that you have an excuse when you ignored the question numerous times before. when you didn't want to admit the reason why.

you can pretend that your cartoons dont look more like a fully formed baby than a 12 week foetus in an attempt to push your agenda. Thankfully most people can see right through it.

12 week foetus sucking its thumb:rolleyes::rolleyes:

J C

david75 wrote: »

If I go to rural Leitrim I’m only going to encounter 50+ kid income level farmer not well educated and not well travelled or experienced.

If I go to cork or Galway I’m going to find a range of lifestyles and educations and incomes and can then compile an accurate poll

What outrageous arrogance!!

So is that why this happened ... and 10 counties didn't even have one person on the Citizens Assembly?

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/an-unintended-bias-in-the-citizens-assembly-1.2908884

david75 wrote: »

You clearly don’t have the vaguest notion on how polling works sweetie. Don’t go there until you’ve read up on it even a little bit.

More arrogance and patronising behaviour.
We all know enough, that recruiting people on the basis of who your family and friends know, is no way to fill a National Assembly charged with making recommendations to government on very sensitive legislation ... and a National Assembly formed without a single person from 10 out of 26 counties, doesn't say a lot about the credibility of the whole thing either.
Quote:-
"The company said the seven replacement members were recruited by one of its employees "outside of the strict methodology" for choosing assembly members.

They were recruited by phone rather than being recruited by cold-calling households door-to-door and were identified as potential members through friends and family of the recruiter."
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0221/942542-citizens-assembly/

Can I pack the next 'Assembly' with my friends and relatives ... I have a few phone numbers here, if Red C is interested in following up and inviting them.:eek:

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

What do you mean 'the expense of others'?
If you are saying that they should kill unwanted unborn children ... doing so would actually be at the expense of the said children.

The pregnant women obviously. There aren't any children involved at up to 12 weeks just fertilised eggs and foetus, as you well know;)

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Except your cartoons are neither accurate nor anatomically correct

Your cartoons show an alleged 12 week old fetus with eyelids, fully formed ears and finger/toe separation whereas the correct (if somewhat disturbing) picture shows a different thing altogether.

Stop claiming your cartoons are "anatomically correct" when they are not.

his non-cartoons are accurate and anatomically correct

splinter65

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Except your cartoons are neither accurate nor anatomically correct

Your cartoons show an alleged 12 week old fetus with eyelids, fully formed ears and finger/toe separation whereas the correct (if somewhat disturbing) picture shows a different thing altogether.

Stop claiming your cartoons are "anatomically correct" when they are not.

Well can you give us your version of an anatomically correct 12 week gestation baby then ?

Timberrrrrrrr

splinter65 wrote: »

Well can you give us your version of an anatomically correct 12 week gestation baby then ?

I posted a link to one earlier in the thread you can look at or find one on Google yourself.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

his non-cartoons are accurate and anatomically correct

then you cAN explain the thumb sucking and the other differences between the "non cartoon" and the actual real pic?

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

The pregnant women obviously. There aren't any children involved at up to 12 weeks just fertilised eggs and foetus, as you well know;)

Those whom the pro-aborts would destroy ... they first call a foetus ... and by pure sematics, they then think they are free to kill them.
Language and the creation of 'non-persons' can be truly deadly.
Quote:-
A nonperson is a citizen or a member of a group who lacks, loses, or is forcibly denied social or legal status, especially basic human rights, or who effectively ceases to have a record of their existence within a society (damnatio memoriae), from a point of view of traceability, documentation, or existence. The term also refers to people whose death is unverifiable and about which inquiries result in a "blank wall" of "nobody knows that".

A more perfect description of the dire position of the unborn within a pro-abort society, it would be hard to get.

A foetus, an unborn child, a newborn baby, and infant child or an adult are all Human Beings, deserving of the respect that should be accorded to all Human Beings."

If somebody has a baldy head ... and you call them a 'fetus' ... why do you think that gives you the right to kill them???

J C

uptherebels wrote: »

then you cAN explain the thumb sucking and the other differences between the "non cartoon" and the actual real pic?

Because an unborn child starts sucking their fingers at about 12 weeks ... and she looks unquestionably Human.

Quote:-
"The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements.

Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human:"

https://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-12-weeks_1101.bc

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

Those whom the pro-aborts would destroy ... they first call a foetus ... and by pure sematics, they then think they are free to kill them.

You mean we call them a foetus because thats what they are?

J C wrote: »

language and the creation of 'non-persons' can be truly deadly.
Quote:-
A nonperson is a citizen or a member of a group who lacks, loses, or is forcibly denied social or legal status, especially basic human rights, or who effectively ceases to have a record of their existence within a society (damnatio memoriae), from a point of view of traceability, documentation, or existence. The term also refers to people whose death is unverifiable and about which inquiries result in a "blank wall" of "nobody knows that".

A more perfect description of the position of the unborn within a pro-abort society, it would be hard to better.

except to become a non person you would have to legally be a person first?

J C wrote: »

A foetus, an unborn child, a newborn baby, and infant child or an adult are all Human Beings, deserving of the respect that should be accorded to all Human Beings."

If somebody has a baldy head ... and you call them a 'fetus' ... why do you think that gives you the right to kill them???

if someone has a baldy head i dont call them anything because a bald head has no determination on anything.

david75

My interpration of arrogance as it relates to this issue is repeatedly posting flawed and misleading and outright lies as facts via articles and images that are designed to mislead and be hysteric and create doubt.
It’s arrogant to believe anyone is falling for it. Never mind arrogant to do it at all.

Not to mention the obnoxious arrogance of trying to control women’s bodily autonomy and personal choices.

uptherebels

J C wrote: »

Because an unborn child starts sucking their fingers at about 12 weeks

Quote:-
"The most dramatic development this week: reflexes. Your baby's fingers will soon begin to open and close, his toes will curl, his eye muscles will clench, and his mouth will make sucking movements.

Meanwhile, nerve cells are multiplying rapidly, and synapses are forming furiously in your baby's brain. His face looks unquestionably human:"

https://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pregnancy-12-weeks_1101.bc

you know what you quoted doesnt mention thumb sucking right? maybe because a far as i'm aware fingers are still fused at that point. Any comment on the other differences?