Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

david75 · 28-03-2018 10:42AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Then they need to rethink their vocations and their true loyalty. And ho please are you so ... savvy re numbers? Hyperbole again.

Yes there will be a tornness. Like the lady I talked to after the same sex referendum. Who wanted her son to e happy but had a deep faith. She told me she did not vote for that reason and that was respected. That seems to have happened often

That was was actually called the marriage equality referendum. People out there letting their faith hold more importance to them than their child’s equal status in society and happiness? Wow. Hardly very Christian of them. Not to mention awful parenting.

Timberrrrrrrr · 28-03-2018 11:08AM

Graces7 wrote: »

Then they need to rethink their vocations and their true loyalty. And ho please are you so ... savvy re numbers? Hyperbole again.

Yes there will be a tornness. Like the lady I talked to after the same sex referendum. Who wanted her son to e happy but had a deep faith. She told me she did not vote for that reason and that was respected. That seems to have happened often

Well if a million people vote and it's 50/50 split then that means 500,000 have voted repeal. As this is a Catholic country and the majority are Christians then it's logical leap to assume that hundreds of thousands will be Christian No?

david75 · 28-03-2018 11:16AM

Yeah I’m nit following the logic ‘I’m voting no and I’m a Christian and this is a Christian country therefore every Christian must vote no as I have.’

That’s past bias into myopia

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 28-03-2018 12:12PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Then they need to rethink their vocations and their true loyalty. And ho please are you so ... savvy re numbers? Hyperbole again.

Yes there will be a tornness. Like the lady I talked to after the same sex referendum. Who wanted her son to e happy but had a deep faith. She told me she did not vote for that reason and that was respected. That seems to have happened often

It's highly likely, regardless of what the final outcome is, that hundreds of thousands of Christians will vote Yes. So it's not hyperbole.

And you are forever saying, as above, 'Happened often' or 'many have done' with no basis for the assertion bar talking to somebody.
At least his estimate is based on some semblance of actual surveys and poll.

SusieBlue · 28-03-2018 12:45PM

Graces7 wrote: »

This kind of taunting ?

Some of us do have lives outside boards ie and other things to do . No one here DUCKS out.

Sorry hun but your pal EOTR has form for it and has done it repeatedly on several threads. Whenever he's called out on giant holes in his "facts" he runs away and hopes people will forget he didn't prove anything, only to return shortly after replying to someone else's reply.
Its blatantly obvious for all to see.

david75 · 28-03-2018 12:49PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry hun but your pal EOTR has form for it and has done it repeatedly on several threads. Whenever he's called out on giant holes in his "facts" he runs away and hopes people will forget he didn't prove anything, only to return shortly after replying to someone else's reply.
Its blatantly obvious for all to see.

He’s been banned from those threads for doing exactly this.

Not here somehow

end of the road · 28-03-2018 12:52PM

Delirium wrote: »

And yet you oppose repealing the 8th.

Simple example a woman on Twitter gave only this week. She is currently receiving cancer treatment.

Before every treatment, she has to take a pregnancy test. If a test is positive, she will not receive her treatment.

She falls under any definition I can conceive of 'medically necessary' yet she doesn't have that option.

i saw that and i agree that she fits the definition of medically necessary.
it's not that i oppose repealing the 8th on it's own merrits, i don't. however given i'm against abortion on demand, and i want to keep the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and the 8th is the only act that contains any right to life for the unborn, i have no option but to vote no.
i have said on a number of occasions that if the government would legislate for medically necessary abortions only, and that if there was some replacement to uphold the unborn's right to life as much as is practical within the constitution, i would vote for repeal. i stand by that.
however i will not vote yes to something when it means something i don't agree with being the outcome. it's just not going to happen, even if it may also allow something i do agree with. the government have forced me into this position and i have made the choice i feel is best for society.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

under what law is it stated that preventing the killing of the unborn outside extreme reasons is torture? i'd suggest that what the unborn goes through when being killed is even more torture (as regardless of what anyone says we don't truely know what they do or don't feel)

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well if a million people vote and it's 50/50 split then that means 500,000 have voted repeal. As this is a Catholic country and the majority are Christians then it's logical leap to assume that hundreds of thousands will be Christian No?

that will depend on whether you believe ireland actually is a catholic country, and whether you believe that all thos who claim to be catholic on the census form, are not only actually catholic, but even believe in the religion. but that's another discussion.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 12:56PM

end of the road wrote: »

i saw that and i agree that she fits the definition of medically necessary.
it's not that i oppose repealing the 8th on it's own merrits, i don't. however given i'm against abortion on demand, and i want to keep the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and the 8th is the only act that contains any right to life for the unborn, i have no option but to vote no.
i have said on a number of occasions that if the government would legislate for medically necessary abortions only, and that if there was some replacement to uphold the unborn's right to life as much as is practical within the constitution, i would vote for repeal. i stand by that.
however i will not vote yes to something when it means something i don't agree with being the outcome. it's just not going to happen, even if it may also allow something i do agree with. the government have forced me into this position and i have made the choice i feel is best for society.

The government haven't forced you into any position, you're taking that completely of your own accord, which is against what is actually best for society.

Why is it whenever something pops up you're ALWAYS in the minority preaching/soapboxing? Do you actually believe in what you've got to say or do you like just voting against the tide so you can argue continuously with people online without any actual proof or facts?

Delirium · 28-03-2018 01:04PM

end of the road wrote: »

i saw that and i agree that she fits the definition of medically necessary.

it's not that i oppose repealing the 8th on it's own merrits, i don't. however given i'm against abortion on demand, and i want to keep the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and the 8th is the only act that contains any right to life for the unborn, i have no option but to vote no.

You agree she fits the definition of medically necessary but support the current scenario that won't allow her an abortion

i have said on a number of occasions that if the government would legislate for medically necessary abortions only, and that if there was some replacement to uphold the unborn's right to life as much as is practical within the constitution, i would vote for repeal. i stand by that.

How? Many of the laws that you would support would fail at the constitutional level. Do you propose we have numerous referendums to continue to add a list of medical scenarios to the constitution?

however i will not vote yes to something when it means something i don't agree with being the outcome. it's just not going to happen, even if it may also allow something i do agree with. the government have forced me into this position and i have made the choice i feel is best for society.

how is forcing women to travel for abortion or have carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes best for society?

under what law is it stated that preventing the killing of the unborn outside extreme reasons is torture? i'd suggest that what the unborn goes through when being killed is even more torture (as regardless of what anyone says we don't truely know what they do or don't feel)

Please explain how a woman taking an abortion pill is torturing the unborn.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 01:08PM

david75 wrote: »

He’s been banned from those threads for doing exactly this.

Not here somehow

MOD NOTE

Please do not discuss moderation, regardless of which forum it is about.

Thanks for your attention.

david75 · 28-03-2018 01:11PM

It's important to remember that a foetus lacks the neuro-anatomical architecture to feel pain until around the 26th week of development. Worldwide, the usual cut-off point for abortion is 24 weeks. We’re looking at abortion up to 12 weeks and further only in serious medical situations.

Please stop with the utterly incorrect nonsense about ‘torture’. It’s blatant lying. A foetus doesn’t have a Brain or central nervous system until 26 weeks.
It doesn’t have sentience nor sapience until long after 26 weeks

end of the road · 28-03-2018 01:23PM

Delirium wrote: »

You agree she fits the definition of medically necessary but support the current scenario that won't allow her an abortion

i have no option given my views. the current situation upholds the unborn's right to life as much as is practical via the constitution and it legally prevents abortion for non-medical reasons in ireland.

Delirium wrote: »

How? Many of the laws that you would support would fail at the constitutional level. Do you propose we have numerous referendums to continue to add a list of medical scenarios to the constitution?

if that was possible and was the only way to make medical reasons be the only option for abortion and implement it into the constitution for protection from changing the abortion laws when politicians decide, then yes.

Delirium wrote: »

how is forcing women to travel for abortion or have carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes best for society?

because it upholds the stance that taking a human life unless absolutely necessary is wrong and that there will be some consiquences for doing that. for me that stance is right because for me and many others the only difference between the born and unborn is that the unborn is at a different stage of development.

Delirium wrote: »

Please explain how a woman taking an abortion pill is torturing the unborn.

i believe one of the aspects of the pill is it starves the fetus to death. thinking about it genuinely makes me ill. i can't agree with that and cannot vote to allow that to legally happen in ireland.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 01:25PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Not really relevant as the legislation puts forward a 12 week cut off.

There's been plenty of arguments, you just don't acknowledge them whatsoever and continue to soapbox/claim your opinion as fact.

a 12 week cut off wuldn't be enough for many of us . would still have to be a no
there have been plenty of attempted arguments, however from what i can see none of them really stack up, given there are plenty of other options that can bring the same outcome without killing the unborn. they mostly seem to centre around lifestyle convenience and not wanting to be pregnant, which aren't good reasons to allow the killing of the unborn, given we don't allow the killng of the born upon similar reasons arising.

robarmstrong wrote: »

That's essentially what voting to save the 8th does, so yes you would be forcing women to keep pregnancies they can't contend with.

well no it's not what saving the 8th does. what saving the 8th does is it keeps the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and it prevents the killing of the unborn within ireland unless absolutely necessary. granted what we have in terms of absolute necessity is rather restrictive, but the government decided not to simply deal with those issues in the aim of getting more support for repeal, instead they went with the abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. they have to live with that if the vote is a no vote.

robarmstrong wrote: »

The government haven't forced you into any position, you're taking that completely of your own accord, which is against what is actually best for society.

Why is it whenever something pops up you're ALWAYS in the minority preaching/soapboxing? Do you actually believe in what you've got to say or do you like just voting against the tide so you can argue continuously with people online without any actual proof or facts?

well yes, the government actually have forced many of us into the position of voting no via their proposals to legislate for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
sometimes when people completely disagree with something that would be the outcome of doing something they would agree with, sometimes people decide that the particular outcome they disagree with is more important to try and prevent then the allowing of the outcome they want, in the hope that there would be an attempt to put forward another proposal that they could support. i believe given there is quite the support for repealing the 8th on it's own merrits, across both pro-life and pro-choice, that it is possible we could get a new proposal that would be more agreeible if a no vote is the result. also, given that a yes vote is also possible, this could be the last time we get to vote on this issue.

david75 wrote: »

It's important to remember that a foetus lacks the neuro-anatomical architecture to feel pain until around the 26th week of development. Worldwide, the usual cut-off point for abortion is 24 weeks. We’re looking at abortion up to 12 weeks and further only in serious medical situations.

Please stop with the utterly incorrect nonsense about ‘torture’. It’s blatant lying. A foetus doesn’t have a Brain or central nervous system until 26 weeks.
It doesn’t have sentience nor sapience until long after 26 weeks

it's not a chance i and many others are willing to take. the government aren't proposing 20 or 24 weeks abortion on demand for a reason.

robarmstrong · 28-03-2018 01:28PM

end of the road wrote: »

a 12 week cut off wuldn't be enough for many of us . would still have to be a no
there have been plenty of attempted arguments, however from what i can see none of them really stack up, given there are plenty of other options that can bring the same outcome without killing the unborn. they mostly seem to centre around lifestyle convenience and not wanting to be pregnant, which aren't good reasons to allow the killing of the unborn, given we don't allow the killng of the born upon similar reasons arising.

well no it's not what saving the 8th does. what saving the 8th does is it keeps the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and it prevents the killing of the unborn within ireland unless absolutely necessary. granted what we have in terms of absolute necessity is rather restrictive, but the government decided not to simply deal with those issues in the aim of getting more support for repeal, instead they went with the abortion on demand up to 12 weeks. they have to live with that if the vote is a no vote.

well yes, the government actually have forced many of us into the position of voting no via their proposals to legislate for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.
sometimes when people completely disagree with something that would be the outcome of doing something they would agree with, sometimes people decide that the particular outcome they disagree with is more important to try and prevent then the allowing of the outcome they want, in the hope that there would be an attempt to put forward another proposal that they could support. i believe given there is quite the support for repealing the 8th on it's own merrits, across both pro-life and pro-choice, that it is possible we could get a new proposal that would be more agreeible if a no vote is the result. also, given that a yes vote is also possible, this could be the last time we get to vote on this issue.

it's not a chance i and many others are willing to take. the government aren't proposing 20 or 24 weeks abortion on demand for a reason.

Yet again you're soapboxing.

There have been plenty of credible arguments put up you just flat out refuse to acknowledge them whatsoever because you have no other mentality of "I'm right everyone else is wrong".

You've literally been chased out of every other thread because you've been wrong multiple times.

You serve no purpose other than a human echo chamber spouting out nonsense.

....... · 28-03-2018 01:35PM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 01:40PM

end of the road wrote: »

i have no option given my views. the current situation upholds the unborn's right to life as much as is practical via the constitution and it legally prevents abortion for non-medical reasons in ireland.

And for medical reasons that you actually would allow for.

if that was possible and was the only way to make medical reasons be the only option for abortion and implement it into the constitution for protection from changing the abortion laws when politicians decide, then yes.

Beyond making women suffer, what does that achieve? Women are ordering abortion pills online or travelling abroad for an abortion. The 8th isn't fit for purpose, i.e. 'protecting the unborn'.

because it upholds the stance that taking a human life unless absolutely necessary is wrong and that there will be some consiquences for doing that. for me that stance is right because for me and many others the only difference between the born and unborn is that the unborn is at a different stage of development.

Do you equally oppose turning off life-support machines? Should we also outlaw that via the constitution? if not, why?

i believe one of the aspects of the pill is it starves the fetus to death. thinking about it genuinely makes me ill. i can't agree with that and cannot vote to allow that to legally happen in ireland.

Equally, forcing women (and children) to go through a pregnancy against their wishes makes me ill.

volchitsa · 28-03-2018 01:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

i believe one of the aspects of the pill is it starves the fetus to death. thinking about it genuinely makes me ill. i can't agree with that and cannot vote to allow that to legally happen in ireland.

What on earth is this about?

Should women whose placenta is failing, meaning the fetus is smaller than normal for its gestation, worry that they are actually torturing their unborn, as well as worrying about whether it will survive?

The whole fetal pain (and now this fresh madness) is transparently an attempt at emotional blackmail about abortion and never about miscarriages or childbirth.

If they cared about fetal pain, it would apply to everything to do with pregnancy (starting with, does it hurt to be born?).
They dont.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 02:10PM

Delirium wrote: »

And for medical reasons that you actually would allow for.

unfortunately yes. but that is the position i have been put in . i cannot and will not vote for something that will allow abortion on demand in any form or that will remove the unborn's right to life. i believe everyone of us has a right to life whether born or not and i have to vote to protect those who have no voice.

Delirium wrote: »

Beyond making women suffer, what does that achieve? Women are ordering abortion pills online or travelling abroad for an abortion. The 8th isn't fit for purpose, i.e. 'protecting the unborn'.

i believe it upholds our stance on life. that it is wrong to take a life unless it is absolutely necessary. while people are traveling abroad to have an abortion, realistically it's a case that we can't stop people from going abroad unless it is to commit an act that is illegal in that country as well or they are a criminal here or they are in the hands of the immigration service. i'm not sure we can say the 8th isn't fit for purpose in terms of protecting the unborn, because it is likely a number of abortions aren't taking place due to the expence of traviling to the uk. at the end of the day, no law is going to stop everyone from doing something.
a few are importing abortion pills and taking them here yes, but at the same time people are importing other drugs and taking them here as well. people doing something they shouldn't isn't a good reason to remove the law/rule IMO.

Delirium wrote: »

Do you equally oppose turning off life-support machines? Should we also outlaw that via the constitution? if not, why?

i don't oppose turning off a life support machine, and we shouldn't outlaw that via the constitution, because when we are at that stage it's because the person is dead.

Delirium wrote: »

Equally, forcing women (and children) to go through a pregnancy against their wishes makes me ill.

children would technically be a medical case in my view. their bodies would not be prepared to cary a child and it would likely damage them.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 02:20PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Should women whose placenta is failing, meaning the fetus is smaller than normal for its gestation, worry that they are actually torturing their unborn, as well as worrying about whether it will survive?

women in that situation are not to blame in any way. natural occurrences cannot be helped and are nobody's fault. they should not worry that they are torturing their unborn.

....... · 28-03-2018 02:23PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 28-03-2018 02:26PM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 02:33PM

end of the road wrote: »

unfortunately yes. but that is the position i have been put in . i cannot and will not vote for something that will allow abortion on demand in any form or that will remove the unborn's right to life. i believe everyone of us has a right to life whether born or not and i have to vote to protect those who have no voice.

but your definition encompasses a 1 day old foetus. The someone doesn't yet exist, unless you're suggesting that merely having human DNA is enough to qualify.

i believe it upholds our stance on life. that it is wrong to take a life unless it is absolutely necessary. while people are traveling abroad to have an abortion, realistically it's a case that we can't stop people from going abroad unless it is to commit an act that is illegal in that country as well or they are a criminal here or they are in the hands of the immigration service.

It can, and has been done. All that is lacking is the will to do it. Probably because if that release valve wasn't there, abortion would have been legal here much sooner.

i'm not sure we can say the 8th isn't fit for purpose in terms of protecting the unborn, because it is likely a number of abortions aren't taking place due to the expence of traviling to the uk. at the end of the day, no law is going to stop everyone from doing something.

Very wishy-washy attitude to protecting the unborn. Thousands travel to abort but happy with the few you prevent.

a few are importing abortion pills and taking them here yes, but at the same time people are importing other drugs and taking them here as well. people doing something they shouldn't isn't a good reason to remove the law/rule IMO.

It's certainly a good reason to review the law and see if the arguments for abortion being illegal hold up to scrutiny. The majority of health professionals have said they don't, and surveys say the public agree. Hence the referendum.

i don't oppose turning off a life support machine, and we shouldn't outlaw that via the constitution, because when we are at that stage it's because the person is dead.

What criteria do you use to determine the person is dead that wouldn't also apply to abortions early in the pregnancy?

children would technically be a medical case in my view. their bodies would not be prepared to cary a child and it would likely damage them.

So the potential to cause harm to the childs body and/or mind is enough to allow abortion. Why do women not warrant the same consideration?

end of the road · 28-03-2018 02:58PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

yes i completely agree that a pregnant woman shouldn't be smoking while pregnant. why would we force them to have abortions?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

we voted for the right for pregnant women to travel yes . unless we are going to start testing every single pregnant women on their way in and when they come back then it's not really viable to try and stop them from going abroad even if it is for an abortion. and why should those not traveling for abortions be made to put up with such measures if they had been introduced.

....... · 28-03-2018 03:06PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 03:08PM

Delirium wrote: »

but your definition encompasses a 1 day old foetus. The someone doesn't yet exist, unless you're suggesting that merely having human DNA is enough to qualify.

i think being at the start of real development would certainly be enough to qualify. to me that is a lot more then simply having human DNA.

Delirium wrote: »

It can, and has been done. All that is lacking is the will to do it. Probably because if that release valve wasn't there, abortion would have been legal here much sooner.

it could only be done if either the evidence that someone is procuring an abortion comes to light, or we test every single pregnant women leaving the country and then again upon their reentering the country. neither are likely and the second would have no support as nobody is going to support measures that effect pregnant women who are not traveling for abortions.

Delirium wrote: »

Very wishy-washy attitude to protecting the unborn. Thousands travel to abort but happy with the few you prevent.

it's about practicality. the constitution even recognises this. any law in the country is never going to have a 100% success rate in stopping what it is designed to stop. it would be great if they did but they don't.

Delirium wrote: »

It's certainly a good reason to review the law and see if the arguments for abortion being illegal hold up to scrutiny. The majority of health professionals have said they don't, and surveys say the public agree. Hence the referendum.

yes however there are a whole mix of different views in relation to that, with many wanting many varied changes.

Delirium wrote: »

What criteria do you use to determine the person is dead that wouldn't also apply to abortions early in the pregnancy?

the same criteria as has been used throughout time. the person is dead. doesn't apply to abortion though in my view. both are uncomparible situations IMO.

Delirium wrote: »

So the potential to cause harm to the childs body and/or mind is enough to allow abortion. Why do women not warrant the same consideration?

because in the majority of cases their body is prepared to cary children. if it genuinely is the case that carying the child would cause permanent injury or disability then abortion should be availible.

Stonedpilot · 28-03-2018 03:10PM

How is this even a thread. Like really.

How can someone call themselves Christian and support abortion??. How?.

Its like a Vegetarian eating meat. You arent a Vegetarian.
Ditto Christian and abortion.

It is that simple.

end of the road · 28-03-2018 03:15PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i don't tend to get involved in campaigns. there aren't enough hours in the day. i do know that any time the topic has come up across other fora there seems to be quite a bit of support for it however.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i don't soapbox. i have read the responces however i still maintain that i cannot support pregnant women who aren't traveling for abortions being put through such measures. i believe having to travel to england is enough in terms of implamenting a consiquence for taking the life of the unborn given the options to prevent it wouldn't be practical without likely effecting those not traveling for abortions.

Turtwig · 28-03-2018 03:18PM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

How is this even a thread. Like really.

How can someone call themselves Christian and support abortion??. How?.

Its like a Vegetarian eating meat. You arent a Vegetarian.
Ditto Christian and abortion.

It is that simple.

Christianity encompasses a broad range of philosophies and theologies. The purpose of this thread is to accommodate this range and let people, both Christian and non Christian alike, discuss and explore the ethics of abortion within that context. Christians, don't necessarily have to subscribe to your interpretation of Christianity and what it means to be Christian.

Delirium · 28-03-2018 03:22PM

end of the road wrote: »

i think being at the start of real development would certainly be enough to qualify. to me that is a lot more then simply having human DNA.

So it's a question of what the foetus will hopefully become, i.e. a person?

it could only be done if either the evidence that someone is procuring an abortion comes to light, or we test every single pregnant women leaving the country and then again upon their reentering the country. neither are likely and the second would have no support as nobody is going to support measures that effect pregnant women who are not traveling for abortions.

Yet you're not overly concerned about the effect of forcing women to carry a pregnancy to term.

it's about practicality. the constitution even recognises this. any law in the country is never going to have a 100% success rate in stopping what it is designed to stop. it would be great if they did but they don't.

Based on the results, it's more a punitive law on those that are too poor/disabled to travel or legally can't travel. You've even suggested as much in that you're okay with them having abortions if they can travel.

yes however there are a whole mix of different views in relation to that, with many wanting many varied changes.

In what way?

the same criteria as has been used throughout time. the person is dead. doesn't apply to abortion though in my view. both are uncomparible situations IMO.

please explain how a 1 day foetus passes the test that is used to determine a person is dead when turning off the life support.

because in the majority of cases their body is prepared to cary children. if it genuinely is the case that carying the child would cause permanent injury or disability then abortion should be availible.

what about short-term injury or disability?

....... · 28-03-2018 03:23PM

This post has been deleted.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments