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

railer201 wrote: »

Here's the currents odds from Paddy Power

Vote to change/remove the 8th Amendment

3/10

Vote to leave the 8th Amendment unchanged

11/5

Speaks for itself

What does that mean? I don’t know anything about odds.

Plus I don’t think Christians are allowed bet or gamble

Bob_Marley

david75 wrote: »

They aren’t offending me at all.
They’re computer generated images though and being employed in a misleading manner.
A 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails in fact it’s handed are still fused.
Anyone believing those images are real need to ask how such a picture is possible to take (hint. It is not possible at all) and why isn’t every pregnant woman out there isn’t asking for such pictures rather than scratchy black and white ultrasound images.

They are not "computer generated images"- They are high resolution high quality photographs, that's what getty images supply.

The technology to take such high res photos has been around since the 60's

http://www.ct4women.com/pc_development.html

photographer Nilsson shot to world fame in 1965 when the American magazine Life ran 16 pages of pictures from his book "A Child is Born" showing the development of a human fetus in the womb.

http://100photos.time.com/photos/lennart-nilsson-fetus

J C

david75 wrote: »

Yeah cos fingernails are important in development.

They're not particulary important ... but you were the one claiming that fingernails somehow 'proved' that Bob's photo couldn't be of 12 weeks old unborn baby.

Originally Posted by david75
"They aren’t offending me at all.
They’re computer generated images though and being employed in a misleading manner.
A 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails in fact it’s handed are still fused."

The fact of the matter is that 12 week olds do have separate fingers that they can suck as well as growing finger nails.

... now please stop 'flogging this dead horse' of an argument.

railer201

Here's the currents odds from Paddy Power

Vote to change/remove the 8th Amendment

3/10

Vote to leave the 8th Amendment unchanged

11/5

Speaks for itself

J C

david75 wrote: »

Can’t disagree with any of that basically because he’s a total opportunist and on this most important of topics he’ll sit on the fence and go where the winds are blowing. He’s totally hedging his bets.

I don’t trust him and I think he’s snake like and manipulative to such a degree he would put Bertie to shame.

No matter what the result of the referendum you can be sure he’ll come out and say it was what he supported and take credit for it. Bank on this.
He’s pretty much lying to both sides on this debate he only cares about his own political career.

Leo is a thoroughly decent Human Being ... trying to do his best ... in the circumstances he finds himself in.

His humanity (and humility) on the issue is a refreshing thing ... and is in dramatic contrast with the extreme feminist position of 'my body alone ... and to hell with my child, if I don't want it'.
Leo is a good guy, on the side of the angels, on this one.
The fact that he is a Medical Doctor also gives him a unique insight into the conscience issue of being faced with kiling an unborn child ... which a thoroughly selfish woman and her partner is demanding be killed, just because they couldn't be bothered using contraception ... and now don't want the baby.
Its the 'unwanted puppy after Christmas' ... on steroids ... and it has to seriously mess with doctors minds!!!

david75

J C wrote: »

Which part of these independent quotes about a 12 week old unborn baby do you not understand?
Quote:-
Your baby is starting to look more human every day. Her eyes have moved closer together and her tiny earlobes are taking shape. She's also gaining some of the skills she'll need after she's born. She can close her fingers to make a fist and use the muscles in her mouth to suck.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant

Quote:-
Baby is able to flex his or her tiny fingers now that your third month of pregnancy is coming to an end. Those little nail beds that recently developed are already starting to sprout fingernails and toenails,"

Yeah cos fingernails are important in development.

J C

david75 wrote: »

They aren’t offending me at all.
They’re computer generated images though and being employed in a misleading manner.
A 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails in fact it’s handed are still fused.

Which part of these independent quotes about a 12 week old unborn baby do you not understand?
Quote:-
Your baby is starting to look more human every day. Her eyes have moved closer together and her tiny earlobes are taking shape. She's also gaining some of the skills she'll need after she's born. She can close her fingers to make a fist and use the muscles in her mouth to suck.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant

Quote:-
Baby is able to flex his or her tiny fingers now that your third month of pregnancy is coming to an end. Those little nail beds that recently developed are already starting to sprout fingernails and toenails,"

david75

J C wrote: »

He would say that, wouldn't he ... when he is proposing that the 8th be removed ... and abortion on demand be introduced.
However, his hesitency to dehumanise the baby with the term fetus, shows that he has very serious reservations about where all of this might head.

Leo doesn't need to worry, the pro-life movement 'has his back' on this ... and he will emerge in the happy position of having 'tried' to repeal the 8th (thereby keeping his pseudo-liberal supporters happy) ... and it will have failed ... thereby easing his conscience ... and keeping his pro-life supporters happy!!!
It will be a win, win, win result all round.:)

... a true poitical 'sweet spot'!!!

Can’t disagree with any of that basically because he’s a total opportunist and on this most important of topics he’ll sit on the fence and go where the winds are blowing. He’s totally hedging his bets.

I don’t trust him and I think he’s snake like and manipulative to such a degree he would put Bertie to shame.

No matter what the result of the referendum you can be sure he’ll come out and say it was what he supported and take credit for it. Bank on this.
He’s pretty much lying to both sides on this debate he only cares about his own political career.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

I wasn’t threatening you at all.
Man you people really do like your hysteria and making stuff up

you are mixing us up with people elsewhere. we don't make things up or do hysteria.

david75 wrote: »

Ps a foetus is not a child. Unborn or otherwise.

a fetus is an unborn developing child, a human being and a human life, that has a right to life free from the threat of being slaughtered for contraceptive, lifestyle and convenience reasons. that can't be argued against.

david75 wrote: »

This same Leo has also said he’s supporting repealing the eighth, I don’t know but you guys seem to be unaware of that.

it doesn't change the facts, which he stated, that a fetus and a human being and an unborn child are one and the same.

david75 wrote: »

They aren’t offending me at all.
They’re computer generated images though and being employed in a misleading manner.
A 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails in fact it’s handed are still fused.
Anyone believing those images are real need to ask how such a picture is possible to take (hint. It is not possible at all) and why isn’t every pregnant woman out there isn’t asking for such pictures rather than scratchy black and white ultrasound images.

Just to be straight. They’re believing camera was inserted into a woman’s womb breaking the sack and taking a perfectly lit photo of a foetus and with background lighting (how????) through the mother’s body to light it?

The ridiculousness is astounding. If you’ll believe images such as those are real you’ll believe anything.

they show the realities.

J C

railer201 wrote: »

Here are more of Leo's views on the present discussion around the 8th, note in particular he puts the mother's well being ahead of the foetus or unborn child.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

He would say that, wouldn't he ... when he is proposing that the 8th be removed ... and abortion on demand be introduced.
However, his hesitency to dehumanise the baby with the term fetus, shows that he has very serious reservations about where all of this might head.

Leo doesn't need to worry, the pro-life movement 'has his back' on this ... and he will emerge in the happy position of having 'tried' to repeal the 8th (thereby keeping his pseudo-liberal supporters happy) ... and it will have failed ... thereby easing his conscience ... and keeping his pro-life supporters happy!!!
It will be a win, win, win result all round.:)

... a true poitical 'sweet spot'!!!

... and no man deserves it better.

david75

splinter65 wrote: »

Do you not like the pictures? How are they offending you?

They aren’t offending me at all.
They’re computer generated images though and being employed in a misleading manner.
A 12 week old foetus does not have fingernails in fact it’s handed are still fused.
Anyone believing those images are real need to ask how such a picture is possible to take (hint. It is not possible at all) and why isn’t every pregnant woman out there isn’t asking for such pictures rather than scratchy black and white ultrasound images.

Just to be straight. They’re believing camera was inserted into a woman’s womb breaking the sack and taking a perfectly lit photo of a foetus and with background lighting (how????) through the mother’s body to light it?

The ridiculousness is astounding. If you’ll believe images such as those are real you’ll believe anything.

railer201

Here are more of Leo's views on the present discussion around the 8th, note in particular he puts the mother's well being ahead of the foetus or unborn child.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

Clearly our politicians also have personal opinions and beliefs surrounding abortion and not just electoral concerns.

Parsing his contributions, it does seems that while Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has pledged to hold a referendum, he falls on the conservative side of the argument.

He appears likely to back terminations in the event of fatal foetal abnormality, rape and a serious threat to a woman’s health.

He has gone global on that, telling the New York Times recently: “While I don’t accept the view that the unborn child, the foetus, if you prefer that term, should have equal rights to an adult woman, to the mother, I don’t share this view that the baby in the womb, the foetus, whatever term you want to use, should have no rights at all.”

J C

david75 wrote: »

This same Leo has also said he’s supporting repealing the eighth, I don’t know but you guys seem to be unaware of that.

... and when he says it should be referred to as a baby and not a fetus ... you better believe him ... because he is on your side.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

Ehh a mod just posted not to be posting these kinds of images. Just a friendly reminder

Do you not like the pictures? How are they offending you?

Delirium

MOD NOTE

david75 wrote: »

Ehh a mod just posted not to be posting these kinds of images. Just a friendly reminder

No need to backseat moderate, if you think someone is breaching the charter/ a mod instruction please use the report button.

@everyone: I didn't say no images were allowed (though personally I'd rather discussion over an image thread) but that graphic images aren't allowed. Even if you link rather than embed.

With the exception of one picture, the images JC was posting weren't a problem. Same with Bobs.

@JC could you please restrain your bolded font use as there have been complaints about it.

Thanks for your attention.

J C

david75 wrote: »

I wasn’t threatening you at all.
Man you people really do like your hysteria and making stuff up

What was this then?

david75 wrote: »

Ehh a mod just posted not to be posting these kinds of images. Just a friendly reminder

david75 wrote: »

Ps a foetus is not a child. Unborn or otherwise.

Its actually a baby ... according to Taoiseach and Medical Doctor, Leo Varadkar.
Quote:-
"I met a friend of mine for dinner on Saturday night and she was pregnant, expecting her first child . . . I did ask her if she knew what sex the baby was. I didn't ask what sex the foetus was," said Minister Varadkar, who is a qualified doctor.

"If I did ask her about her foetus, she would have been quite offended.

... "It is yet to be explained to me why people use a medical word to talk about what is a form of human life, if not a person,"

I can give Leo the answer to that ... the pro-abort people refer to the baby as a fetus ... to distance themselves from the horror of killing a tiny innocent baby.
... and to dehumanise the baby ... so that they can kill it with impunity.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

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

no it's to dehumanise them. they are an unborn baby. when speaking to a pregnant woman you don't ask her "how are you and the fetus doing" you ask her "how are you and the baby doing"

david75 wrote: »

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.

none of this is happening, so there is nothing to fall or not fall for. everyone of us have our bodily autonomy and personal choices controled where exercising such will cause harm or death to others.

david75

This same Leo has also said he’s supporting repealing the eighth, I don’t know but you guys seem to be unaware of that.

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

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

You can use the term fetus all day long, but no one is fooled that it's not a human life / baby /unborn child.

Lets hear what Leo had to say ... its powerful stuff ... and blows this 'fetus' nonesense out of the water.

Quote:-
"But he (Leo Varadkar)went on to question the use of word 'foetus' in such contexts.

"I met a friend of mine for dinner on Saturday night and she was pregnant, expecting her first child . . . I did ask her if she knew what sex the baby was. I didn't ask what sex the foetus was," said Minister Varadkar, who is a qualified doctor.

"If I did ask her about her foetus, she would have been quite offended.

"And the same goes for my sisters because, to me, a foetus is a medical word.

"It's like talking of your glossus instead of your tongue or your digits instead of your fingers.

"I often wonder why people use that word.

"It is yet to be explained to me why people use a medical word to talk about what is a form of human life, if not a person," said the minister."

... so next time you use your glossus to pontificate on something you actually know nothing about (the features of a 12 week old unborn baby) ... I would urge you to keep your buccal cavity closed ... to avoid confirming your objective lack of knowledge on the subject.:eek:

Bob_Marley

uptherebels wrote: »

when you posted this pic before i pointed out the differences between it and an actual 12 week foetus?

And i believe the photographer would have titled it, and if the title is all you have to cling to with no actual proof then....

Still waiting for any shred of proof that Getty images are lying . . .

J C

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Fingernails look manicured :rolleyes:

Please stop embarassing your self ... you have lost this argument ... the photo is obviously a 12 wek old unborn child

The quotes below from totally independent sources precisely describe the features in the (totally independent) Getty Photo of a 12 week child

Quote:-
Your baby is starting to look more human every day. Her eyes have moved closer together and her tiny earlobes are taking shape. She's also gaining some of the skills she'll need after she's born. She can close her fingers to make a fist and use the muscles in her mouth to suck.

https://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant

Quote:-
A fetus at 12 weeks has fully formed eyelids. These aren’t just closed tightly; they’re actually fused together and will remain that way until late in your second trimester.

Baby is able to flex his or her tiny fingers now that your third month of pregnancy is coming to an end. Those little nail beds that recently developed are already starting to sprout fingernails and toenails,"
https://www.pampers.com/en-us/pregnancy/pregnancy-calendar/12-weeks-pregnant[/QUOTE]

Bob_Marley

david75 wrote: »

Ps a foetus is not a child. Unborn or otherwise.

Same false claim again ? . . .looks like it's Leo time again Dave . . .

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

You can use the term fetus all day long, but no one is fooled that it's not a human life / baby /unborn child.

uptherebels

Bob_Marley wrote: »

They have titled them 12 WEEK OLD HUMAN FETUS, so as I said, proof please that one of the largest photo providers in the world are lying.

when you posted this pic before i pointed out the differences between it and an actual 12 week foetus?

And i believe the photographer would have titled it, and if the title is all you have to cling to with no actual proof then....

Timberrrrrrrr

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

probably based on the webpage title

"Your pregnancy: 12 weeks"

But do continue to ignore reality:D

The reality that nowhere on that webpage it is stated that a 12 week.old foetus starts to suck it's thumb/fingers as JC claimed?

david75

J C wrote: »

You want a photo ... and when you get (a tasteful beautiful picture of a living unborn child that is almost identical to a nbewborn baby) ... you then threaten us with the mods on the totally spurious basis that this beatutiful tasteful picture is somehow 'graphic'.

You couldn't make it up!!!

I wasn’t threatening you at all.
Man you people really do like your hysteria and making stuff up

Ps a foetus is not a child. Unborn or otherwise.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

You want a photo ... and when you get (a tasteful beautiful picture of a living unborn child that is almost identical to a nbewborn baby) ... you then threaten us with the mods on the totally spurious basis that this beatutiful tasteful picture is somehow 'graphic'.

You couldn't make it up!!!

That's not what he said at all! Reread his pist and apologise for having a hissy fit and accusing him of somethingbhe didnt do/say

uck51js9zml2yt

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

JC said

Please show where in the link JC provided that this is stated!

probably based on the webpage title

"Your pregnancy: 12 weeks"

But do continue to ignore reality:D

J C

Bob_Marley wrote: »

You're welcome JC - More hi res safe for viewing photos here , and from a neutral source, getty images, one of the largest image libraries in the world.
I'd say you'll be able to make great use of them.

https://www.gettyimages.ie/search/stack/624894889

Very interesting how squeamish the pro-abortion people are about tasteful pictures of beautiful living unborn children ... that they have no problem ripping limb from limb in abortions.

... not only do they not want to be made to look at the baby body parts in a bucket that is the direct result of the abortions they are campaigning for ... they now don't even want to be brought face to face with the beautiful living unborn babies they want to kill on demand up to 12 weeks ... and beyond.

Bob_Marley

uptherebels wrote: »

where did getty images say this pic was accurate?

They have titled them 12 WEEK OLD HUMAN FETUS, so as I said, proof please that one of the largest photo providers in the world are lying.

uptherebels

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Are you saying Getty images, one of the largest and oldest photo image libraries in the world are liars ? Proof please.

where did getty images say this pic was accurate?