Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Delirium wrote: »

Not so. Story that's going around this week.


Source

if this article is correct, it was this Noel chap who lied. he is the only one responsible for lying, nobody else. as a whole the pro-life campaign does not engage in lies and misinformation. the odd individual may lie about themselves, as i'm sure there are individuals lying in the pro-choice movement, but it is they, and they only who are wrong and responsible for their actions.

david75 wrote: »

EOTR you’re not personally responsible for the entire PLC I know but you really should make yourself aware of what’s going on under the PLC banner before you make statements saying they don’t engage in lies and misinformation.

See delirium’s post above. And that’s just one guy. There are many other instances this very week.

i'm well aware of what is going on under the plc banner. hence my statement as a whole about the campaign. the odd individual telling lies will happen on both sides but it is not the act of the campaign, but the individuals themselves.
and considering you made a couple of false allegations and claims yourself in relation to nick park's points i think it's a bit rich you complaining about people telling lies.

end of the road wrote: »

there is a need for abortion services for genuine medical reasons only. there is no need for abortion services for lifestyle reasons, it's a want only. a want which there is no obligation to facilitate. any money that would be spent on it is already being spent on pressing matters and should not be diverted to abortion on demand.
pro-life don't engage in misinformation and lies as there is nothing to gain from it.

Thats exactly what I think. Special circumstances only. But having an abortion because it is not suitable to their lifestyle... please give me a break.

Then a girl told me - but being pregnant is very hard and painful and I don't want to be forced to go though this.
Really ? Having periods is also very stressful and It would be great if we didn't have periods ,but it is part of woman biology and there is nothing that we can do about it.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

exactly, hence no requirement for abortion outside medical reasons. just a want for it. a want to kill the unborn for contraceptive, convenience and lifestyle reasons.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and that needs to change. it would be a good campaign to have and many on the pro-life side would support it. unlike a campaign to be able to kill the unborn for contraceptive, lifestyle and convenience reasons.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And that is your choice. However, not everyone would feel the same as you and it’s highly selfish and narrow minded to want to inflict your personal morals and stance as the whole of society.

I’m saying this as a women of a similar age to you, who would never have an abortion, who has had a stillbirth and who has no other children. I respect and encourage choice.

If we can’t even trust women to make a choice for themselves, how can we trust them with the responsibility of reading another human?

Selfish is having an abortion because you got pregnant at the wrong time.
Don't your think that you're being selfish with your own baby?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Selfish is bringing an unwanted life into the world when you don’t have the means (financially, physically or emotionally) to support it.
Do you really think it’s in the best interests of a child to be born to a mother who never wanted him? Is it fair to inflict a substandard childhood on a child in that situation?

No woman would get an abortion unless it was absolutely necessary. You have to consider what circumstances a woman might be in to come to such a decision, and then trust her that she made the right choice.
If she thinks she is unable to care for a child, who are we to force her? Who are we to force that kind of upbringing on a child?

A huge problem here is the weaponising of children, turning them into pawns of punishment to inflict on their ‘careless/promiscuous’ their careless mothers. Its disgusting.

I agree with you in some part. The ideal is woman getting an abortion because it's necessary. But in reality is not going to be like that.

When I was a teenager I was terrified of getting pregnant and having to deal with my parents.
If I did get pregnant and abortion was available my parents would definitely encourage me to do it and I wouldn't have another choice.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Domestic adoption is non existent in Ireland, in 2016 (most recent stats) there were only 5 newborn babies adopted in this country.

And up to late last year, adoption wasn't an option for married women, who make up more than half the women traveling to Britain for an abortion.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And that is your choice. However, not everyone would feel the same as you and it’s highly selfish and narrow minded to want to inflict your personal morals and stance as the whole of society.

I’m saying this as a women of a similar age to you, who would never have an abortion, who has had a stillbirth and who has no other children. I respect and encourage choice.

If we can’t even trust women to make a choice for themselves, how can we trust them with the responsibility of reading another human?

it's not one bit selfish or narrow minded at all. the morals and stance are about preventing the killing of other human beings, and as we already impose those morals on society in relation to the born, there is no good reason not to impose them on society in relation to the unborn, as we have been doing. we don't have the choice to kill born human beings and rightly so, so there is no requirement for a choice to kill unborn human beings, unless genuine extreme medical necessity requires it.
if you want to trust women in relation to making a choice to be able to kill the unborn, then why not remove the laws in relation to the born for women and let them make the choice to kill the born if they believe it's the right decisian?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Selfish is bringing an unwanted life into the world when you don’t have the means (financially, physically or emotionally) to support it.
Do you really think it’s in the best interests of a child to be born to a mother who never wanted him? Is it fair to inflict a substandard childhood on a child in that situation?

No woman would get an abortion unless it was absolutely necessary. You have to consider what circumstances a woman might be in to come to such a decision, and then trust her that she made the right choice.
If she thinks she is unable to care for a child, who are we to force her? Who are we to force that kind of upbringing on a child?

A huge problem here is the weaponising of children, turning them into pawns of punishment to inflict on their ‘careless/promiscuous’ their careless mothers. Its disgusting.

killing other human beings is a billion times more selfish however. not having the means to support the child can be changed or if not, then there is adoption. it is fair that the unborn have a right to life.
some women would very much have an abortion when it is absolutely unnecessary, and they do. according to another poster, it's likely most giving they admit the reason for an abortion is simply because the contraception failed. the circumstances in which those women came to that decisian don't need to be taken into account, and if we cannot trust women to make the right choice in terms of whether to kill a newborn which we rightly don't, then there is no requirement for us to trust her that she made the right choice in terms of killing the unborn.
if she thinks she is unable to care for a child, she has options open to her that don't involve the killing of the unborn. we have every right to force her not to kill the unborn, just like we have every right to force her not to kill the newborn. there is no weaponizing of children, there is no turning them into pawns of punishment to inflict on their supposed ‘careless/promiscuous’ mothers.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

adopting in Ireland is an extremely lengthy, expensive and emotionally draining journey, so most looking to adopt do so internationally from countries such as Vietnam and China. There are unfortunately way way too many children stuck in foster care, though.

again that can be dealt with

that can be changed. it would be a worth while campaign unlike campaigning to be able to kill the unborn.

david75 wrote: »

Ah yes, a "Pro-Life Feminist" : Asked if women should also be able to chose not to be mothers, she said: “Of course, but you don’t have sex if you don’t want to be a mother. That’s the scientific facts.”

The resounding stupidity of this statement. From a former nurse no less. . Of course she’s serious.
Read for the awkward comedy alone
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pro-life-feminists-protest-against-referendum-plans-1.3419862

Not sure about her, but there are pro life feminists.

mariemoon wrote: »

Not sure about her, but there are pro life feminists.

It all depends on what you mean by pro life and by feminist.

Pro life as in wanting to encourage women not to terminate a pregnancy, sure. But when we have had a teenage girl locked up in a psychiatric ward for asking for an abortion, and another forced to undergo a c section under threat of being sectioned, I dont think it's possible to defend a law like that and call oneself a supporter of human rights, never mind a feminist.

mariemoon wrote: »

Again im not against banning it. Because it will always be there, in London or in someone's basement.
I am gainst abortion being freely for anyone.
Maybe u should read page 299 and 298 to understand my point.

Yes we need the service for special circumstances only.

I don't quite understand what you are saying : abortion is acceptable for the reasons that you think acceptable? What if the pregnant woman thinks her reason is absolutely acceptable and you dont? Why should your opinion count for her life?