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

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You really like lumping everyone together , don't you?

It's not like amnesty have broken any rules or anything like taking foreign money which is nothing but a foreign individual seeking to influence a national debate.

Delerium. It's not a case of a change of mind at some future date, after all we've seen that happen in several debates over the years. It's looks very much like being told the answer was wrong. Vote the right way next time.
Interesting that the repeal side are already considering a possible defeat:)

Please explain lumping things together? Are you saying they haven’t engaged that company?
Are you suggesting the pro life campaign and Iona aren’t being flooded with foreign donations? Not to mention the outside interference from the Catholic Church??

And who is considering defeat? Haven’t seen that on either side tbh

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

So you're saying people do have choice in Ireland because they can go to the UK? And you portray that a good thing.

So what is wrong with them having that choice in Ireland?

because the choice to kill other human beings isn't required. the fact the human beings who people want and support the availability of industrial killing of are unborn, doesn't change that fact.

david75

A zygote and a foetus are neither sentient nor sapient. They have no awareness nor ability to form awareness. They are not babies and it’s completely false and incorrect to suggest they are

Industrial killing? Hysterical much??

Delirium

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

Delerium. It's not a case of a change of mind at some future date, after all we've seen that happen in several debates over the years. It's looks very much like being told the answer was wrong. Vote the right way next time.
Interesting that the repeal side are already considering a possible defeat:)

And what's wrong with that? Any group has the right to campaign to roll back the result of a vote.

That's how the upcoming referendum came about.

And it would be somewhat silly to take any result as a given when it comes to voting.

Graces7

david75 wrote: »

A zygote and a foetus are neither sentient nor sapient. They have no awareness nor ability to form awareness. They are not babies and it’s completely false and incorrect to suggest they are

Industrial killing? Hysterical much??

Please add the correct word "human" to each of your terms? They are human. And science cannot prove their awareness etc . Also there was no embryologist at the Citizens Assembly hearings.

uck51js9zml2yt

david75 wrote: »

Please explain lumping things together? Are you saying they haven’t engaged that company?
Are you suggesting the pro life campaign and Iona aren’t being flooded with foreign donations? Not to mention the outside interference from the Catholic Church??

And who is considering defeat? Haven’t seen that on either side tbh

You speak of the pro life groupings as though they are an homogeneous group and that they represent everyone who feels this way. They are not and so not.
A prime time program last week suggested most of the pro life groups took no foreign money. I can't speak for those who didn't reply and I can't speak for the RCC as I'm not part of that or any other organization.

Considering the pro repeal are already talking of another vote to get the right result , I would say they are!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Graces7 wrote: »

Please add the correct word "human" to each of your terms? They are human. And science cannot prove their awareness etc . Also there was no embryologist at the Citizens Assembly hearings.

You make statements as though they were facts. Science can most certainly prove an inability for awareness in a zygote and a mammalian embryo. Adding 'human' changes nothing except distinguishing the term embryo from a pre-sentient human and animals that develop inside eggs.

Why should an embryologist, by definition, be addressing the so called Citizen's Assembly and what difference does it make either way?

david75

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

You speak of the pro life groupings as though they are an homogeneous group and that they represent everyone who feels this way. They are not and so not.
A prime time program last week suggested most of the pro life groups took no foreign money. I can't speak for those who didn't reply and I can't speak for the RCC as I'm not part of that or any other organization.

Considering the pro repeal are already talking of another vote to get the right result , I would say they are!

Where are you pulling this from? We had a referendum in 83 and we’re looking to repeal that result. That’s democracy.
If the 8th is repealed, pro life would be well within its rights to try campaign and bring about another referendum. Just as if it isn’t repealed pro choice would likely do the same.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

A zygote and a foetus are neither sentient nor sapient. They have no awareness nor ability to form awareness. They are not babies and it’s completely false and incorrect to suggest they are

Industrial killing? Hysterical much??

irrelevant. they are unborn human beings. sentience is irrelevant and is a non-argument seeing as we don't base rights on it. seeing as you support the availability of abortion on demand, then you have an obligation to stand over it and admit and except the reality of what it involves and what it is

david75

end of the road wrote: »

irrelevant. they are unborn human beings. sentience is irrelevant and is a non-argument seeing as we don't base rights on it. seeing as you support the availability of abortion on demand, then you have an obligation to stand over it and admit and except the reality of what it involves and what it is

You are hilarious. Not that long ago you were posting videos of the foetus’ ‘silent scream’. To feel pain or scream a brain and nervous system is required.
A foetus has neither.
So now you’re switching positions again????

You’re in the wind EOTR

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

You are hilarious. Not that long ago you were posting videos of the foetus’ ‘silent scream’. To feel pain or scream a brain and nervous system is required.
A foetus has neither.
So now you’re switching positions again????

You’re in the wind EOTR

i posted no such videos. you are mixing me up with another poster dav. a fetus does have a nervous system after a certain time, so it can feel pain.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

i posted no such videos. you are mixing me up with another poster dav. a fetus does have a nervous system after a certain time, so it can feel pain.

Like it can suck it’s thumb and kick out at Mother’s belly?
It can do none of these things.

Ps pretty sure it was you posting those videos and making that argument.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Like it can suck it’s thumb and kick out at Mother’s belly?
It can do none of these things.

after a certain time yes it can. after all, it's surely a fetus right up to birth is it not? at least that is what some pro-choice are telling us. or maybe, just maybe, it's actually an unborn baby, long before born, and at and before 12 weeks. the only reason "fetus" is used outside the medical profession is to dehumanise the unborn.

david75 wrote: »

Ps pretty sure it was you posting those videos and making that argument.

i never posted any videos. you are definitely mixing me up with another poster.

david75

A foetus can do none of those things.

You are either unaware of this or willfully ignoring this.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

A foetus can do none of those things.

You are either unaware of this or willfully ignoring this.

so you agree then that what is in the womb is an unborn baby from a very early timeframe. because it can do all of those things from very early on.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

david75 wrote: »

A foetus can do none of those things.

You are either unaware of this or willfully ignoring this.

In fairness from 11 weeks on the foetus can do many of those things. The foetal stage goes to birth..

david75

end of the road wrote: »

so you agree then that what is in the womb is an unborn baby from a very early timeframe. because it can do all of those things from very early on.

Early on?? It cant.
We come back to the phrase of the debate. 12 weeks.
In no universe especially this one is anyone calling for abortion on demand. Or Abortion up to birth. In this same debate we are actually dealing with a massive point you guys won’t even acknowledge which is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination for herself.

You consistently say ‘as long as it doesn’t happen here, we can’t stop women travelling’. So by that logic, it would take women longer to get to England for an abortion and the pregnancy would be further along and the foetus more developed and by that stage, aware in some cases.

So you support the foetus actually having to suffer in real terms post 12 weeks, whereas if that option was available to women here in Ireland, there would be no suffering.

Do you not see the gaping hole in your position?

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Early on?? It cant.
We come back to the phrase of the debate. 12 weeks.
In no universe especially this one is anyone calling for abortion on demand. Or Abortion up to birth. In this same debate we are actually dealing with a massive point you guys won’t even acknowledge which is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination for herself.

You consistently say ‘as long as it doesn’t happen here, we can’t stop women travelling’. So by that logic, it would take women longer to get to England for an abortion and the pregnancy would be further along and the foetus more developed and by that stage, aware in some cases.

So you support the foetus actually having to suffer in real terms post 12 weeks, whereas if that option was available to women here in Ireland, there would be no suffering.

Do you not see the gaping hole in your position?

it can do those things early on dav. that is a fact.
the call is for abortion on demand up to a certain time frame. the view on that time frame differs from 12 to 16 or even 20 weeks depending on who you talk to, the government have opted for 12 weeks to try and get a vote for repeal.
abortion is nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination for herself, bodily autonomy and self-determination are just used to muddy the waters and to make this into a rights issue, which it isn't. if we are to argue that abortion is about bodily autonomy and self-determination, then why not support abortion up to birth.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

it can do those things early on dav. that is a fact.
the call is for abortion on demand up to a certain time frame. the view on that time frame differs from 12 to 16 or even 20 weeks depending on who you talk to, the government have opted for 12 weeks to try and get a vote for repeal.
abortion is nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination for herself, bodily autonomy and self-determination are just used to muddy the waters and to make this into a rights issue, which it isn't. if we are to argue that abortion is about bodily autonomy and self-determination, then why not support abortion up to birth.

You’ve just hit on something I’ve been thinking a long time.

The two sides in this debate are having two *totally* different conversations.
You guys are talking about the what ifs and intangibles and unproveables. This side is talking about women. In the real world.

You just said abortion is nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. So in that you completely disregard every woman’s right to that autonomy. And self determination and by extension you are insisting women should be forced to give birth no matter what.

Read your post again before replying and tell me where you or anyone on that side of the debate has the right to say that and impose that thinking onto the women of Ireland?

It is exactly this line of thought that is turning people against no. That ugly horrid grip on our sisters and daughters lives and wombs.

I have no doubt you can’t make the leap to s e this post from This side rather than your own. You are not alone on being hardwired myopic redundancy.
But to defeat an enemy you must understand them. And you don’t. At all.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

You’ve just hit on something I’ve been thinking a long time.

The two sides in this debate are having two *totally* different conversations.
You guys are talking about the what ifs and intangibles and unproveables. This side is talking about women. In the real world.

because the what iffs and long term possibilities are important. the reason they are important, is if repeal wins, then that is it, there will be no further public votes on the issue. so we need to get everything debated now, so that people can go in with all the facts and possibilities. yourself and the rest of the pro-choice movement on the other hand want to deflect and deny and try and shut down any discussion on possibilities because you know that by giving people more information they will be better informed.

david75 wrote: »

You just said abortion is nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. So in that you completely disregard every woman’s right to that autonomy. And self determination and by extension you are insisting women should be forced to give birth no matter what.

Read your post again before replying and tell me where you or anyone on that side of the debate has the right to say that and impose that thinking onto the women of Ireland?

what right do we have to impose any thinking on anyone? the reality is, where protecting human beings is involved, we impose thinking on society for the greater good and the smoother functioning of that society, in an attempt to try and mitagate against people causing harm to others.

david75 wrote: »

It is exactly this line of thought that is turning people against no. That ugly horrid grip on our sisters and daughters lives and wombs.

there is no evidence people are turning against either movement on the basis of posts on boards.ie . the reality is there are few people who will either change their mind, or haven't decided. most people have decided what way they are voting. there is no grip on anyone's daughters lives and wombs. there is a grip on protecting the unborn from being killed outside absolute necessity, just like there is a grip on preventing all of us from being killed or harmed.

david75 wrote: »

I have no doubt you can’t make the leap to s e this post from This side rather than your own. You are not alone on being hardwired myopic redundancy.
But to defeat an enemy you must understand them. And you don’t. At all.

oh i very much understand them. that is why i have been able to debunk their arguments and why i have probably received the most vitrial of all pro-life posters across this site through 1 particular threadd which i was formerly part of. and guess what, it's worth it all, because i believe and feel strongly about protecting human beings whether born or unborn from harm, and i am doing a good thing for society by voting no to repeal on the basis of these proposals, and i'm doing a good thing by challenging the pro-choice narrative which seeks to allow the killing of the unborn.

david75

You haven’t debunked anything. You’ve run away from every question you’re uncomfortable with across multiple threads. There is no vitriol. There is however people getting pissed off with someone who says their pro life but cherry picks what kind kind of abortion is acceptable and CONSTANTLY refuses to answer questions and rattles off nonsensical answers. You.

This is what is turning people off pro life’s argument. And it’s delicious that you don’t see it.
If I had a bet I’d say you’re a plant from the pro choice side. You’re convincing so many to vote yes.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

You haven’t debunked anything. You’ve run away from every question you’re uncomfortable with across multiple threads. There is no vitriol. There is however people getting pissed off with someone who says their pro life but cherry picks what kind kind of abortion is acceptable and CONSTANTLY refuses to answer questions and rattles off nonsensical answers. You.

This is what is turning people off pro life’s argument. And it’s delicious that you don’t see it.
If I had a bet I’d say you’re a plant from the pro choice side. You’re convincing so many to vote yes.

i have debunked everything. i have answered every question where those questions were relevant and i haven't ran away from anything. there was lots of vitrial on one particular thread toards pro-life posters just for being pro-life. there is no evidence anyone is being turned off the pro-life campaign by posts on a website, it's wishful thinking on your part with no basis in fact or reality. you can keep trying to make out otherwise but there is nothing to back it up.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

i have debunked everything. i have answered every question where those questions were relevant and i haven't ran away from anything. there was lots of vitrial on one particular thread toards pro-life posters just for being pro-life. there is no evidence anyone is being turned off the pro-life campaign by posts on a website, it's wishful thinking on your part with no basis in fact or reality. you can keep trying to make out otherwise but there is nothing to back it up.

Yep. Delusional. About to quote you on every relevant thread. Let’s see how that works out for your claim debunking and answering.

You have done neither. Ever.

Lantus

A loving Christian would want individual choice for all and understand that even if abortion is legal they still have their religion to prevent them availing of that.

Jesus never forced religion on anyone. He never used votes to enforce mob rule on the ones who disagreed.

If Christians believe that the only way to safe gaurd morality is to maintain Draconian and totalitarian laws to suppress the rights of anyone that disagrees with their narrow view of the world then what does that say about religion....

Not a lot.....

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

Yep. Delusional. About to quote you on every relevant thread. Let’s see how that works out for your claim debunking and answering.

You have done neither. Ever.

nope, wrong again dav. i have done either. plenty. quote me away, it won't change the reality and the facts though.

uck51js9zml2yt

Lantus wrote: »

A loving Christian would want individual choice for all and understand that even if abortion is legal they still have their religion to prevent them availing of that.

Jesus never forced religion on anyone. He never used votes to enforce mob rule on the ones who disagreed.

If Christians believe that the only way to safe gaurd morality is to maintain Draconian and totalitarian laws to suppress the rights of anyone that disagrees with their narrow view of the world then what does that say about religion....

Not a lot.....

A Christian doesn't stand by and stay silent when murder is being committed....yet another straw man from pro repeal!

I'm out of this conversation. See you all at the polls

end of the road

Katie Full Leak wrote: »

A Christian doesn't stand by and stay silent when murder is being committed....yet another straw man from pro repeal!

I'm out of this conversation. See you all at the polls

you should stick around and challenge them.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

i have debunked everything. i have answered every question where those questions were relevant and i haven't ran away from anything. there was lots of vitrial on one particular thread toards pro-life posters just for being pro-life. there is no evidence anyone is being turned off the pro-life campaign by posts on a website, it's wishful thinking on your part with no basis in fact or reality. you can keep trying to make out otherwise but there is nothing to back it up.

Actually I was undecided in terms of what way I'd vote, but on reading a lot of the pro life posts on here and checking other threads/posts by the same people and seeing the negative attitude they have to women, I decided I'm going to vote for repeal.
The reasoning for this is that someone very close to me was raped. Luckily they didn't become pregnant from the attack, but have spent years trying to come to terms with it and I don't think they ever will, I'm not sure anyone does come to terms with it. But if they had become pregnant from the attack and been forced to carry to term it would most likely have destroyed her completely. Reading the posts here from the pro life side on here actually sickened me when I thought of what else she might have had to go through and made me realise that what ever my feelings are on abortion, I'm certainly not going to force anyone to not have the choice to have one.

Turtwig

david75 wrote: »

There is no vitriol.

Sadly there has. You not seeing it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Turtwig

david75 wrote: »

Yep. Delusional.

Mod:

Please refrain from such language.