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

Delirium

EirWatchr wrote: »

When the citizen comes out of the womb, by natural or artificial means, after 24 weeks gestation, alive or dead.

So not while in the womb from conception as EOTR implied.

Appreciate the information.

yenom

EirWatchr wrote: »

When the citizen comes out of the womb, by natural or artificial means, after 24 weeks gestation, alive or dead.

Going off topic here but if the child comes out dead then no PPS number is issued as the automatic PPS numbers are linked to birth certificates and not still birth certificates. That said, if the parents want a PPS number the Dept would give them one. I know this as I worked in that field.

Graces7

Pondering much on this and issues from the other thread in the long silent nights here

If you do not believe in God, in Jesus, then a different attitude than we who know and love the Lord Jesus.. and I am not referring to what one poster listed as dogma or what the clergy teach, but a soul-deep knowledge and love, a faith that we strive to live in our love of Jesus....

And maybe we need to think more laterally and widely. SO much condemnation flying around re lack of compassion for women

Bu this is not so. After an abortion, the woman is alive. The baby is not. Will never be alive, while the woman can go forward/. As she can by bearing the child, by sharing her life with that innocent and helpless baby .

And we do have moral standards to go by. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of them, and the early church, in the Didache, forbids "procuring an abortion."

Yes deep compassion for the woman
Of course

This new Order combines this.
http://www.sistersoflife.org/about-the-sisters-of-life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Life

Turtwig

Mod: Previous warning still applies.

Use facts and opinions in your own words please.

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:

...
This is serious moral and ethical issue the minimum that can be of expected of us is to put our opinions and arguments forward. Not the words verbatim of others.
[instead please use] our own opinions or [our] interpretations of others opinions [by expressing them] in our own words.
...

Thanks

david75

Graces7 wrote: »

Pondering much on this and issues from the other thread in the long silent nights here

If you do not believe in God, in Jesus, then a different attitude than we who know and love the Lord Jesus.. and I am not referring to what one poster listed as dogma or what the clergy teach, but a soul-deep knowledge and love, a faith that we strive to live in our love of Jesus....

And maybe we need to think more laterally and widely. SO much condemnation flying around re lack of compassion for women

Bu this is not so. After an abortion, the woman is alive. The baby is not. Will never be alive, while the woman can go forward/. As she can by bearing the child, by sharing her life with that innocent and helpless baby .

And we do have moral standards to go by. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of them, and the early church, in the Didache, forbids "procuring an abortion."

Yes deep compassion for the woman
Of course

This new Order combines this.
http://www.sistersoflife.org/about-the-sisters-of-life

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_of_Life

So Following your thinking, the foetus will not live but will return to remain at gods right hand side for all eternity basking in his love and glory.
Maybe that was his plan all along. Who are we to question that.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

So Following your thinking, the foetus will not live but will return to remain at gods right hand side for all eternity basking in his love and glory.
Maybe that was his plan all along. Who are we to question that.

i don't think his plan was for that to happen via mother's being able to kill their unborn children just because they were inconvenient. after all he wouldn't have issued the "one shall not kill" commandment.

david75

You’re presuming to speak for God?
Have you ever actually read the commandments as originally written?

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

i don't think his plan was for that to happen via mother's being able to kill their unborn children just because they were inconvenient. after all he wouldn't have issued the "one shall not kill" commandment.

Rather unusual that as someone who claims to be a life-long atheist you talk about 'his plan'. Something other than the loaves smells a bit fishy here

end of the road wrote: »

religion has nothing to do with it for me as i'm not religious and nor was i brought up religious.

Graces7

david75 wrote: »

So Following your thinking, the foetus will not live but will return to remain at gods right hand side for all eternity basking in his love and glory.
Maybe that was his plan all along. Who are we to question that.

?? show me where I said that please? The commandment remains. DO NOT KILL. Our responsibility ends with obeying that commandment

smacl

Graces7 wrote: »

?? show me where I said that please? The commandment remains. DO NOT KILL. Our responsibility ends with obeying that commandment

That might well be the case, but I'd suggest that most Christians would make the exception where taking someone else's life is necessary to save their own life or that of a loved one under attack for example. Many more would not be pacifists, and be ok with soldiery and necessary application of lethal force by law enforcement officers where deemed necessary (e.g. shooting a crazed gunman in a school or shopping mall). Put another way, many Christians don't treat the bible as absolute literal truth, and others seem in favour of just war as can be seen in this thread.

Kudos if you're personal philosophy as a Christian is to not kill under any circumstance, but I'd say you're as likely to be the exception as the rule there. Christianity is not a notably peaceful religion.

Timberrrrrrrr

smacl wrote: »

Rather unusual that as someone who claims to be a life-long atheist you talk about 'his plan'. Something other than the loaves smells a bit fishy here

Sure the same poster claims to be a "republican" yet has already stated that if the people of Ireland vote to repeal the 8th then the will of the people should be ignored and the 8th kept.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Graces7

smacl wrote: »

That might well be the case, but I'd suggest that most Christians would make the exception where taking someone else's life is necessary to save their own life or that of a loved one under attack for example. Many more would not be pacifists, and be ok with soldiery and necessary application of lethal force by law enforcement officers where deemed necessary (e.g. shooting a crazed gunman in a school or shopping mall). Put another way, many Christians don't treat the bible as absolute literal truth, and others seem in favour of just war as can be seen in this thread.

Kudos if you're personal philosophy as a Christian is to not kill under any circumstance, but I'd say you're as likely to be the exception as the rule there. Christianity is not a notably peaceful religion.

Indeed it is, when lived rightly as so many live it. by the words f Jesus Christ, Son of God , Saviour

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Rather unusual that as someone who claims to be a life-long atheist you talk about 'his plan'. Something other than the loaves smells a bit fishy here

nothing fishy about it at all. the commandment has been mentioned within this thread quite a bit. it's easy to ascertain from it that killing the unborn isn't part of the plan.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sure the same poster claims to be a "republican" yet has already stated that if the people of Ireland vote to repeal the 8th then the will of the people should be ignored and the 8th kept.

yes i'm a very prowd and good republican. so what?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Graces7

end of the road wrote: »

nothing fishy about it at all. the commandment has been mentioned within this thread quite a bit. it's easy to ascertain from it that killing the unborn isn't part of the plan.

.....and many atheists live holy lives in the sense that they respect and honour life rather than destroy it.

pauldla

Graces7 wrote: »

[/B]

Indeed it is, when lived rightly as so many live it. by the words f Jesus Christ, Son of God , Saviour

'Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword!'

It may well be argued that the quote has been taken out of context (it has been) or that different interpretations of the context are possible (they are), but that reinforces the point smacl is making, does it not? Is it labouring the point to add 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'?

Turtwig

MOD:

This thread is for a discussion on abortion. In particular, a discussion on the legality and ethics of it from a Christian perspective. This is not a thread to discuss the wider tenets of Christianity as a whole. Posters should be also be reminded of the forum charter. While comment on Christianity is welcome it should not be seen as
an open invitation to attack Christianity.

david75

It’s finny the way ‘judge not lest ye be judged’ gets forgotten in all this.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

It’s finny the way ‘judge not lest ye be judged’ gets forgotten in all this.

nobody is being judged. the act is being judged. if we were discussing the killing of newborns the same would happen. and there would be a lot more agreement.

Graces7

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is being judged. the act is being judged. if we were discussing the killing of newborns the same would happen. and there would be a lot more agreement.

Yep; the difference between abortion and infanticide is one small breath of air. And see

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/uk-admits-hundreds-of-babies-left-to-die-after-botched-abortions

google has pages of this and there is even a new word "feticide"

"thou shalt not kill" .

Graces7

david75 wrote: »

It’s finny the way ‘judge not lest ye be judged’ gets forgotten in all this.

It is not judging to obey the commandment of God "do not kill" .

david75

so It’s like bible buffet where you pick can and choose what rules to follow and blithely ignore others as they relate to you personally.

Very very odd.

There really is no room for religious extremists in this debate. Leave controlling women as second class and less equal to the Muslim extremists. It’s unbecoming Of any Christian.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

so It’s like bible buffet where you pick can and choose what rules to follow and blithely ignore others as they relate to you personally.

Very very odd.

There really is no room for religious extremists in this debate. Leave controlling women as second class and less equal to the Muslim extremists. It’s unbecoming Of any Christian.

there is no controling of women. preventing women from killing their unborn child is not controling them. you are the one bringing in religious extremists to the debate, they are a very very tiny few and there are none on here.

david75

end of the road wrote: »

there is no controling of women. preventing women from killing their unborn child is not controling them. you are the one bringing in religious extremists to the debate, they are a very very tiny few and there are none on here.

YOu are controlling a woman when you prevent them from making their own choices. You yourself said you’d stop them travelling if you could.
That is extremism.

end of the road

david75 wrote: »

YOu are controlling a woman when you prevent them from making their own choices.

correct. however that isn't happening here. they are being prevented from killing another human being within the state, who just so happens to be unborn. the same would happen to them if the human being was born, except they would be prosecuted in that case.

david75 wrote: »

You yourself said you’d stop them travelling if you could.
That is extremism.

it's not, as it would be preventing her from killing someone else. religious extremism isn't relevant given there are none on boards and the few that exist in ireland are tiny in number.

NuMarvel

Graces7 wrote: »

Yep; the difference between abortion and infanticide is one small breath of air.

Under Irish law, there's more to it than that.

If I killed a newborn tomorrow, I could face a charge of murder which brings with it an automatic life sentence. On the other hand, if I carried out an illegal abortion, my crime would be "destruction of the unborn", and my maximum penalty would be 14 years.

Similarly, our constitution expressly protects the freedom to travel abroad for an abortion, but there's no equivalent provision for infanticide. And I'd say a referendum to include one wouldn't have a chance in being held, let alone being passed.

It's clear that the law, and the people in general, view abortion and infanticide as two different things. And that'll remain the case no matter what way the referendum goes.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

correct. however that isn't happening here. they are being prevented from killing another human being within the state, who just so happens to be unborn. the same would happen to them if the human being was born, except they would be prosecuted in that case.

it's not, as it would be preventing her from killing someone else. religious extremism isn't relevant given there are none on boards and the few that exist in ireland are tiny in number.

Well the person who is thanking you the most on this thread just posted a link from an extremist religious publication.

david75

DubInMeath wrote: »

Well the person who is thanking you the most on this thread just posted a link from an extremist religious publication.

It’s almist like he’s trying to cover for them. They don’t exist only in tiny numbers apparently. But he said none of them are here ??

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

Well the person who is thanking you the most on this thread just posted a link from an extremist religious publication.

which from what i can see didn't say anything that is incorrect. and that poster is as far from being a religious extremist as it gets.